科學論證是科學教育研究的核心議題之一，近年來與科學論證相關研究的文獻數量大量增長，顯示其重要性與日俱增。本研究併用文件探勘法(text-mining)以及傳統文獻分析方法針對Web of Science (WoS)的社會科學引文資料庫(Social Science Citation Index, SSCI)中論證相關研究文獻進行分類，找出論證研究領域的重要研究主題，並比較國內外科學教育學者在論證研究主題上的差異。本研究自Chemistry Education: Research And Practice (CERP)、International Journal of Science Education (IJSE)、 Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST)、 Research in Science Education (RSE)、Science & Education (S&E) 與Science Education (SE)等六個在科學教育領域具代表性的電子期刊資料庫搜尋從1965年至2014年止共279篇論證文獻資料進行分析。分析結果顯示，論證研究領域可分為九大主題，包括「以論證能力作為科學教育課程目標」、「科學建模與論證品質」、「以論證增進科學學習成效」、「論證過程的科學語言或對話模式」、「論證時同儕互動」、「探究實驗與論證」、「小組討論如何影響論證」、「社會性科學議題中的論證」，以及「論證與態度的關係」等九類研究主題之相關研究。比對文件探勘與專家分類的一致性為0.86，顯示其具有好的一致性。此外，國外學者的研究以數量來看前三名依序為「以論證增進科學學習成效」、「社會性科學議題中的論證」、「以論證能力作為科學教育課程目標」，國內學者發表數量的前三名依序為「社會性科學議題中的論證」、「科學建模與論證品質」、「以論證增進科學學習成效」。整體而言，相較於所有國家學者的研究數量，國內科學教育研究學者在科學論證領域之比例（3.9%）比所有主題研究發表的平均比例（2.2%）高將近一倍。然而國內學者在「論證過程的科學語言或對話模式」、「論證時同儕互動」、「小組討論如何影響論證」等三個主題的研究發表則相對較為缺乏。本研究之結果可以做為國內科學教育學者未來從事科學論證相關研究時的參考。

The increase in researches on science argumentation during the last decades indicates that science argumentation has become an essential research topic in science education. The current study applied the text-mining technique to categorize the articles on science argumentation from the SSCI database (Web of Science), to find out the important research themes and to compare the differences in interest topics on argumentation between Taiwanese and the international researchers in science education. Based on a systematic review procedure, 297 articles in argumentation from six journals in science education were selected as the sample analyzed in the current study. These six journals include Chemistry Education: Research And Practice (CERP), International Journal of Science Education (IJSE), Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), Research in Science Education (RSE), Science & Education (S&E) and Science Education (SE). According to the current analysis, nine themes including “C1: enhancing argumentation ability as a goal of science education”, “C2: argumentation in modeling”, “C3: enhancing science learning through argumentation”, “C4: using science language or the dialogue in argumentation”, “C5: peer-interaction in argumentation”, “C6: science inquiry and argumentation”, “C7: group discussion and argumentation”, “C8: argumentation in social scientific issues” and “C9: scientific attitude and argumentation” were identifies as important research themes on science argumentation. The consistency between the categorization conducted using text-mining technique and conducted by expert in science education is about 0.86. The results also indicate that C3, C8, and C1 are the more frequent topics studied by international researchers, and C8, C2, and C3 are by Taiwanese researchers in science education. In addition, the ratio of articles published by Taiwanese and international researchers on argumentation is about 0.04 and is almost twice as the ratio of articles on all the research topics in science education.

一、中文部分
　　吳玫緗、蔡今中（2007）。科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性。國立交通大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，新竹市。
洪振方、封中興（2011）。運用 [以建模為基礎的論證教學模式] 促進國二學生的科學學習成效-以光學單元為例。臺北市立教育大學學報，100，85，124。
翁秀玉、段曉林（1997）。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊，210。
許玫理、郭重吉（1993）。我國國民中學自然科學教師科學哲學觀點之調查研究。科學教育，(4)，183-236。
劉宏文（1996）。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義。科學教育月刊。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭(2007)。符合 Toulmin 論證模式之系統發展研究: TANET。國立高雄師範大學科學教育所、南台科技大學數位設計學院。
尹其言、楊建民（2010）。應用文件分群與文件探勘技術於機器學習領域趨勢分析以 SSCI 資料庫為例。長榮大學學報，14，1-16。
許中川、陳景揆（2001）。探勘中文新聞文件。資訊管理學報，7(2)，103，122。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
二、西文部分
American Association for the Advancement of science.(1989). Project 2061: Science
　　　for all Americans. Washington，D.C.: Author.
Apté, C. (1997). Data mining: an industrial research perspective. Computational Science & Engineering, IEEE, 4(2), 6-9.
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an Inquiry‐based Approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.
Albe, V. (2008). 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.
Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology: Cambridge University Press.
Binkley, R. (1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic, 17(2).
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic systems: An examination of students' argument about density. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447-492.
Cheng, W.-L. (2005). The Research on A Single Classifier in Text Classification of Multi-Class.
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science: McGraw-Hill International.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
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.
Eskin, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2013). Argumentation as a Strategy for Conceptual Learning of Dynamics. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1939-1956.
Feldman, R., & Dagan, I. (1995). Knowledge Discovery in Textual Databases (KDT). Paper presented at the KDD.
Giere, R. N., Bickle, J., & Mauldin, R. F. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Fort Worth, TX.
Giddens, A. (2013). The consequences of modernity: John Wiley & Sons.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity.
Hearst, M. A. (1999). Untangling text data mining. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-s., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K. (2013). Promoting and Scaffolding Elementary School Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Argumentation Through a Science and Society Intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
Hotho, A., Nürnberger, A., & Paaß, G. (2005). A Brief Survey of Text Mining. Paper presented at the Ldv Forum.
Hundal, S., Levin, D. M., & Keselman, A. (2014). Lessons of researcher–teacher co-design of an environmental health afterschool club curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1510-1530.
Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151.
Jime´ nez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). " Doing the lesson" or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kastens, K. A., Agrawal, S., & Liben, L. S. (2009). How Students and Field Geologists Reason in Integrating Spatial Observations from Outcrops to Visualize a 3‐D Geological Structure. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 365-393.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind & Language, 3(3), 217-228.
Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-179.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: University of Chicago press.
Kulatunga, U., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 576-588.
Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer‐led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 237-252.
Logan, M., & Skamp, K. (2008). Engaging students in science across the primary secondary interface: Listening to the students’ voice. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 501-527.
Losiewicz, P., Oard, D. W., & Kostoff, R. N. (2000). Textual data mining to support science and technology management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 15(2), 99-119.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
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.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525.
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.
Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2014). Students’ Attitudes to Information in the Press: Critical Reading of a Newspaper Article With Scientific Content. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 603-626.
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.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School science review, 82(301), 63-70.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery: Routledge.
Quinn, V. (2002). Critical Thinking in Young Minds: Taylor & Francis.
Rod Watson, J., Swain, J. R., & McRobbie, C. (2004). RESEARCH REPORT: Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Rop, C. J. (2003). Spontaneous inquiry questions in high school chemistry classrooms: Perceptions of a group of motivated learners. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 13-33.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Çam, A. (2011). Elementary children's judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383-408.
Schweingruber, H. A., Duschl, R. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School:: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8: National Academies Press.
Shannon, C. E. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3-55.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation?
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.
Smith, J., Wilson, S. B., Banks, J., Zhu, L., & Varma‐Nelson, P. (2014). Replicating Peer‐Led Team Learning in cyberspace: Research, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 714-740.
Singhal, A. (2001). Modern information retrieval: A brief overview. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 24(4), 35-43.
Tan, A.-H. (1999). Text mining: The state of the art and the challenges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the PAKDD 1999 Workshop on Knowledge Disocovery from Advanced Databases.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Cambridge University Press.
Tseng, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y., Tutwiler, M. S., Lin, M.-C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2013). A scientometric analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan’s educational research projects. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1141-1166.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14): Cambridge University Press.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary‐grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65-95.
Watson, J. R., & Swain, J. R. L. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Whittaker, J. (1989). Creativity and conformity in science: Titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 473-496.
Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students' cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer‐simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108-1133.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.