本研究旨在呈現國中生態單元的教學中，學生在進行任務討論時，同儕對話呈現的概念地位改變過程，並探究小組討論中影響概念地位改變的同儕因素和教學因素。參與研究的是台北縣某國民中學的一個七年級班級，研究者在三個月的教學觀察後，選取焦點小組作深入的分析。研究者觀察並錄影該班整個生態單元的教學活動，並收集小組討論的錄音帶、學習單和教師發給各小組閱讀的教材文本，此外，亦針對教師和學生分別進行教學理念的晤談、概念學習狀況，以及對於學習情境想法的晤談。分析對話時，主要是運用P. Hewson和J. Lemberger所形成的編碼架構，分析小組進行任務時的對話，之後再配合所收集的其他資料，詮釋個案小組討論各核心概念時，所展現的概念地位改變過程，並分析及詮釋可能影響概念地位改變的同儕因素和教學因素。
根據研究結果發現，第一，在小組所呈現的概念改變過程中，小組會受到教師任務設計和鼓勵學生舉例作答的影響，因而在進行討論的時候偏好使用例子類別的發言；小組在面對可以運用具體經驗聯想的概念時，則會偏向使用語言和知識論類別的發言來決定概念地位的升降。第二，在同儕的影響方面，由於小組對於任務詮釋的影響，使得小組所形成進行任務的態度，會以完成學習單為目標；在自主性強的討論情境中，學生的發言風格，可以區分成討論的領導者，與討論的充實者；另外，在運用例子類別發言時，組員的學望會有較明顯的影響。第三，在教學的影響方面，由於學生具有運用資訊的自主權，卻缺乏閱讀動機和策略，教師提供的教材文本因而無法發揮預期的效果；再加上，教師沒有進一步確認學生對任務的理解，學生發生誤解或忽略教師所提供訊息的情形。針對以上結論，建議教師在進行合作學習的教學時，對於教師所提供的必要訊息，可以進一步去確認學生的理解情形；在面對比較抽象的概念時，可以先加強學生的知識背景；此外，應加強學生閱讀訊息的動機與策略，並培養學生進行磋商的習慣和能力，以提升小組討論的效能和品質。

The purposes of this study were to explore the changing process of conceptual status in the taped group discussions, and to explore the influences came from peers and the teacher’s instructions. A group of five 7th graders were selected after three-month classroom observation. Collected data include field-notes, observation journals, interviews, taped group discussions, worksheets, and instructional texts. The researcher modified P. Hewson and J. Lemberger’s coding framework and used it to analyze the taped discourse. The coding result and other data collected were combined to interpret the changing process of the conceptual status in terms of each discussed concept. In addition, the possible influences came from peers and the teacher’s instructions were also interpreted.
Major findings were as following: First, for the teacher’s task design and teaching style of encouraging students to provide answers in instances, students tended to use “examplars” to represent their understandings of concepts during the conceptual changing process; and the first two influential codes of discourse were “language” and “epistemology”. Second, regarding peer factors, students were concerned about completing worksheets; students usually divided into “guiding” members and “extending” members in discussions; and students’ academic status functioned obviously when they used “examplars” in expressing ideas. Third, regarding the teacher’s instructions, students didn’t use the instructional texts in the way as expected while they had full ownership but were lacking of motivation and strategies to read the texts.
According to the findings above, there came to some suggestions about the instruction strategies. Before entering into group discussion phase, the teacher may ensure students’ understandings of provided information; when dealing with abstract concepts, the teacher may build students’ knowledge background first; the teacher may promote students’ motivation and improve their strategies for using information; and the teacher may enhance students’ competency in negotiating viewpoints to reach the goals of co-construction through group discussions.

中文文獻
李暉和郭重吉（2000）：科學話語與科學概念之學習：以國中生理化課學習為例。科學教育, 10, 3-29。
李維譯（2000）：思維與語言。台北市：昭明書局。
李賢哲和張蘭友（2001）：國小學童「電池」概念之探究－理論與實證。科學教育學刊, 9(3), 253-280。
林雅慧（2001）：國小低年級教師進行科學對談之行動研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
許家驊（1998）：從社會互動認知建構觀點探討動態評量在評估及促發認知監控潛能上的應用性。國立臺南師範學院「初等教育學報」,11, 335-364。
陳淑敏（1995）： 社會互動對認知發展的影響。論文發表於八十四年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集。台北市：教育部。
張世忠（1996）：從社會建構學者的觀點看學生的分享對概念學習上的重要性。興大人文社會學報, 5, 181-192。
游麗卿（1999）：Vygotsky社會文化歷史理論：搜集和分析教室社會溝通活動的對話及其脈絡探究概念發展。國教學報, 11, 230-258。
程樹德、傅大為、王道還和錢永祥合譯（1999）：科學革命的結構。台北市：遠流出版社。
楊文金（2000）：同儕友伴關係對六年級學生科學問題組對討論的影響分析。科學教育學刊, 8(2), 123-140。
楊榮祥和Fraser, B. （1998）：台灣和西澳科學教室環境的合作研究－研究架構、方法及對台灣科學教育的省思。科學教育學刊, 6（4）, 325-342。
黃瑞琴（2002）：質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理出版社。
熊同鑫（2000）：語言與自然科學教育。台北市： 心理出版社。
蔡敏玲（1996）：眾聲喧嘩中，看誰在說話？幼稚園及小學教室互動方式的節奏與變奏。教育資料與研究, 12, 2-20。
藍偉瑩（2002）：小組地位與科學概念改變關係的探討－以「物質狀態與氣體性質概念」為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蕭英勵（1999）：社會語言學於教學上的意涵。中等教育, 50(2), 81-89。
西文文獻
Basili, P. A., & Sanford, J. P. (1991). Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 293-304.
Bigge, M. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1999). Learning theory for teachers (6th ed). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bloome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student discourse. In J. L. Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp.217-248). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural–historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions-psychological and educational considerations (pp.1-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp.46-69). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M. E., & Flores, F. (1994). Preconceptions and relations used by children in the construction of food chains. Journal of Research in Science Education, 31(3), 259-272.
Green, J. L.， & Harker， J. O. （1988）. Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood， NJ： Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hanrahan, M. （1998）. The effect of learning environment factors on students motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20（6）, 737-753.
Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55-87.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396.
Hewson, P. W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 61-78.
Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp.199-218). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597-614.
Hewson, P., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Status and subscribing: A response to Schwitzgebel. Sceinece & Education, 8, 507-523.
Hewson, P., & Lemberger, J. (2000). Status as the hallmark of conceptual learning. In R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osbon (Eds.), Improving science education (pp.110-125). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541-553.
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of research in education, 21, 49-95.
Ireson, J. （2000）. Activity and interaction in pedagogical contexts. In H. Cowie & G. Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction (pp.21-34). New York: Elservier Science Ltd.
Johnstone, A. H. （1991）. Why is science difficult to learn？：things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Asisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (Eds.) (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning. London：Routledge.
Meijer, J., & Elshout, J. J. (2001). The predictive and discriminat validity of the zone of proximal development. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 93-109.
Michele, G. (2000). Institutional framings in thinking, learning and teaching. In H. Cowie & G. Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction (pp.21-34). New York: Elservier Science Ltd.
Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 30-34.
Naylor, P., & Cowie H. (2000). Learning the communication skills and social processes of peer support: A case study of good practice. In H. Cowie & G. Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction (pp.21-34). New York: Elservier Science Ltd.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ola Adeniyi, E. （1985）. Misconceptions of selected ecological concepts held by some Nigerian students. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 311-316.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions-psychological and educational considerations (pp.47-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions-psychological and educational considerations (pp.88-110). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, 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.
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions-psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (2001). Group processes in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Van der Aalsvoort, G. M., & Harinck, F. J. H. (2000). Studying social interaction in instruction and learning: Methodological approaches and problems. In H. Cowie & G. M. Van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction. New York: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.