摘 要
本研究旨在探究教師的教學策略對學生論證的影響，合作對象為一資深的國中教師-劉老師，劉老師以合作學習的方式進行教學已有相當長的時間，其教學活動以讓學生能進行討論及辯證為主。在本研究中，收集有課室觀察的錄影、教師晤談、及學生的學習單等多元資料，採用紮根理論為策略來分析資料，以了解教師在課室中採用何種策略引發學生的論證及促進學生完成論證。
研究中的分析方式是，首先採用Toulmin (1958)的論證定義選取教師與學生的論證片段以進行分析。在選擇論證片段後，以Kuhn和Toulmin對論證因子的定義為基礎，將所有的語句編碼，再分析所有的論證片段有無相同或相異之處，來發掘課室中論證的特徵及模式。在此過程中會持續比對教師的策略對學生論證的影響，並與教授及研究伙伴討論，隨時檢視資料，以確定歸納的教學策略正確無誤。最後，研究者參考Kuhn (1991)、Jimenez-Aleixandre (2005)和Osborne (2004)等人對論證能力及品質的標準，研擬一論證評鑑的標準，再對不同時期及不同類型的論證進行評鑑。
研究結果發現教師對於引發論證及促使論證完成有不同的策略來協助學生，而這些策略皆與培養學生的論證能力息息相關。在評鑑論證品質的部分，發現學生的論證在學期的前後表現有明顯的差異，學生的論證品質在後期有所增進。在本研究中也歸納出教師的提問會影響學生論證形成的模式，可分為主張式、選擇式及開放式論證，一般來說主張式論證中的提問較封閉，學生能發展的空間有限，因此以之前擬定的論證品質標準來評鑑學生論證，大多分布在第一、二級；選擇式論證因教師有所提示，學生的表現中庸；開放式論證中，學生的表現則呈現兩極化的分布。最後依據研究結果，對未來研究、教學提出建議。

The Impact of Teaching Strategy on Forming Argumentation
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of teaching strategy on forming argumentation. Teacher Liu, who has abundant teaching experience, is working with us. She has taught in collaborative learning style for many years, and has offered quite a lot of chances for students to discuss and debate in class. In this study, data of class observation, interviews, and field notes are collected. The grounded theory approach is applied to form the teaching strategies pattern of the teacher Liu. The focus is on teacher Liu’s strategies to initiate and push students to complete argumentation.
The analysis in this study is to adopt the definition of argumentation of Toulmin to select discourse passages between teacher and students. After selecting argumentation passages, all words are encoded in the definition of Kuhn and Tolmin, and all argumentation passages are compared with each other to find out the pattern and characteristics of argumentation in class. In the process, the teacher's impact on student's argumentation is constantly observed, and discussed by professor and partners to make sure the analysis is correct. Finally, the rubric is set up by the definition of argumentation quality and ability of Kuhn, Jimenez-Aleixandre, and Osborne to evaluate argumentation of different types and phases.
It is found that teacher Liu has different strategies to initiate argumentation and make it complete, and these strategies is closely related to students’ argumentation ability. It is also found that the argumentation quality of students is improved after training of a term. It is summed up that the questions of teacher influence the patterns of students’ argumentation forming, divided into three types, ‘"claim-provided model", "claim-optional model", and "open model". Generally speaking, if the question is closed, the development of students’ argumentation is limited, and the quality of argumentation is distributed in the first or second grade. However, if teacher gives some clues in selective argumentation, the behavior of students is mean; in open argumentation, students’ behavior present in polarized distribution. Suggestions for further study and teaching were also provided.

參考文獻
中文文獻
朱原等譯 (1997)：朗文當代高級辭典. 香港, 朗文出版亞洲有限公司.
李維譯 (2000)：思維與語言. 台北市, 昭明書局.
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.
徐宗國譯 (民89)：質性研究概論. 台北市, 巨流.
張春興 (1996)：教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐. 台北市, 台灣東華書局
許郁君 (2002)：科學對談對國中生概念轉變的探討. 國立高雄師範大學化學研究所碩士論文.
熊同鑫 (2000)：語言與科學教育. 台北市, 心理出版社.

英文文獻
Bently, D., & Watts, M. (1992). Communitcating in school science: Groups, tasks and problem solving 5-16. London. Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argument (pp. 84-98). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promting argumentation discourse in science education. Studise in Science Edcuation, 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.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York & London: Teachers College Press.
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2000). Dialogue as data: Assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocals.: academic press.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2002). "doing the lesson"or " doing science": Arugment in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Lopez-Rdriguez, R., & Erduran, S. (2005, April). Aguementative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
Kelly, G. F., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as agurment: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1988). Teh development of scientific thinking skill. Orlando: Academic Press.
Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., & Simth, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793-818.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypotheticopredictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387-1408.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Langue, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skill among finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4, 175-191.
Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429-444.
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.
Niax, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, constradictions, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525.
Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368.
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, 63-70.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903-927.
Simonneaux, L. (2002). Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 9-12.
Sproule, J. M. (1980). Argument: Language and its influence.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A hand book of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Voss, J. F., & Dyke, A. J. V. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89-111.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Yore, L. D., & Bisanz, G. L. (2003). Ezamining 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, 35-62.