摘要
本研究目的為探討大學生透過不同的論證任務學習摩擦力概念時，受試者的學習成效為何。研究中使用Toulmin論證模式中的「論據」與「反駁」，讓兩組受試者透過執行不同的論證任務學習摩擦力，藉此探討兩組別受試者的摩擦力應用知識與迷思概念改善情形，並觀察受試者執行任務時的表現。因執行的論證任務不同將受試者分成兩組：論據組有24人而反駁組有22人。
針對本研究之研究目的與問題，說明研究結果如下：
1. 應用知識學習成效與迷思概念改善情形在組別間並無顯著差異，不論使用哪種論證方式學習並無顯著差異。
2. 論證能力在學生的學習過程中扮演了重要的角色，高論證能力的受試者在摩擦力的應用知識學習成效和迷思概念的改善情形皆比低論證能力的受試者稍好，達邊緣顯著。
3. 以任務表現進行分析，發現論證能力與迷思概念分別顯著地影響任務表現，但論證能力與迷思概念間並無交互作用。即高論證能力的受試者的任務表現比低論證能力的受試者來得好；低迷思概念的受試者的任務表現則比高迷思概念的受試者來得好。
4. 整理兩組別受試者訪談時對於執行論據與反駁任務的想法，發現受試者執行完論證任務後，大多有發現兩論證任務的功能。反駁組中，覺得反駁相較於論據對於學習比較有用的受試者，認為反駁可以多一個思考的角度檢視自己的想法是否有錯；而論據組中覺得論據相較於反駁比較有用的受試者則認為論據可以幫助我們連接證據跟主張，有系統地產生正確概念架構。

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the learning effects of different argumentation tasks on university students’ concepts of friction. Two groups of students learned about friction through generating warrants (N = 24) and rebuttals (N = 22), two components of the Toulmin Argument Pattern, respectively. Their performance in applied knowledge, reduction of misconceptions, and task performance were observed and compared. Four major findings are discussed as follows:
1. The performance in the post-test was significantly better than that in the pre-test. But the differences between groups were not significant.
2. Students’ argumentation ability was important for learning. Students with higher argumentation ability had slightly better performances in both applied knowledge (p < .07) and reducing misconceptions (p < .06) than those with lower argumentation ability.
3. Both the argumentation ability and misconception before task affected the task performance. Students with higher argumentation ability had better task performance than those with lower argumentation ability. Students with fewer misconceptions also had better task performance than those with more misconceptions.
4. From the interview after task, both groups of students perceived the benefit of the task assigned to them. Students in the rebuttal group felt that generating rebuttals can provide an alternative viewpoint to examine the correctness of their thoughts. Students in the warrant group felt that generating warrants can help them connect the data with the claim and establish a framework of correct knowledge systematically.

參考文獻
中文部分
丁信中(2003)。青年學生於理論競爭論證過程中對其支持理論侷限的覺察，未
出版之博士論文，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所，高雄市。
牛志中(2011)。論證式小組討論對高職一年級學生光學迷思概念改變影響之研
究，未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學物理系，彰化縣。
何定樑(1991)。物理－力學(1)。臺北市：徐氏基金會。
林煥祥、洪振方、洪瑞兒(2007)。智育理念與實踐。收錄於教育部(主編)，德智
體群美五育理念與實踐。臺北市：教育部。
吳正文(2011)。小組論證對高二學生概念改變影響之研究，未出版之碩士論
文，國立彰化師範大學物理系，彰化縣。
曾嘉鳳(2011)。探討論證取向教學策略對國二學生論證能力與對論證的態度之
影響，未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所，高雄市。
蔡春來(2003)。探討國中生對摩擦力的迷思概念，未出版之碩士論文，國立臺
灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
蔡興國(2012)。系統基模教學策略對修正高中學生力的迷思概念及增進描繪力
圖能力影響之研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究
所，彰化縣。
蔡佩君(2007)。融入競爭理論的論證取向教學提升學生的論證能力、學習動機
與自我效能之研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究
所，高雄市。
葉冠慧(2009)。應用網路化論證提昇國中學生論證能力與化學反應概念改變，
未出版之碩士論文，國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。

施富吉(2010)。論證式探究教學對八年級學生浮力概念改變與論證能力影響之
研究，未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所，彰化縣。
陳倩嫻(2008)。探討數位論證學習課程對中學生科學概念建構與論證能力之影
響，未出版之碩士論文，國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。
陳文正、古智雄、許瑛玿、楊文金(2011)。概念卡通論證教學促進學童論證能力
之研究。科學教育學刊，19(1)，69-99。
陳敬典(2007)。探討競爭解釋的論證取向教學策略對國二學生論證能力與教室
環境知覺之影響，未出版之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究
所，高雄市。
黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌(2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學
教育學刊，16(4)，375-393。
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。
黃晉益(2013)。國中生「摩擦力」迷思概念之補救教學研究-以精熟學習觀點，
未出版之碩士論文，銘傳大學教育研究所，台北市。
楊之明(2005)。國小中高年級學童摩擦力概念之研究，未出版之碩士論文，台
中師範學院自然科學教育學系，台中市。
楊雪菁(2007)。運用辯護與反駁的教學策略提升學生論證能力之研究，未出版
之碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所，高雄市。

 
英文部分
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.
Chia, T.-C. (1996). Common misconceptions in frictional force among university
physics students. Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 107-116.
Capuder, R. (2009). Microscopic description of friction. Unpublished master thesis,
Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljani.
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. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
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.
Erduran, S., & JiMénez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science
education. Florida State University-USA: Spinger.
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative
conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science
Education, 10(1), 61-98.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York:Cambridge University Press.
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.
Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children's
views of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1-14.
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.
Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of Time (A. J. Pomerans, trans.). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation
of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science
Education, 66(2), 211-227.
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.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of
argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Trumper, R., & Gorsky, P. (1997). A survey of biology students' conceptions of
force in pre‐service training for high school teachers. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 15(2), 133-147.
Yeh, K.-H., & She, H.-C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation
learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in
science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586-602.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry
instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of
argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge
University Press.

Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in
argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 337-350.