| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立嘉義大學 === 科學教育研究所 === 97 === The purpose of this study was to improve the sixth graders’ content knowledge, scientific attitude and argumentation quality about a socioscientific issue—“Building Hu-Shan Reservoir” through argumentation instruction. The study adopted quasi-experimental design and convenient sampling. The sixth graders of two classes came from the elementary school in Yunlin county in Taiwan. One class was the experimental group (N=34) who received the argumentation instruction and the other one was comparison group (N=34) who received the traditional instruction. All of the students were asked to complete Content Knowledge Test, Scientific Attitude Scale, and Questionnaire on Argumentation Skills before and after the instruction. Some of students were interviewed after the instruction. Analysis of covariance and t-test were employed to analyze the data. The results of the study were the followings: (1) Both the experimental group and the comparison group showed statistically significant improvement on the scores of Content Knowledge Test (p<.001). The experimental group’s scores in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). The experimental group’s improvement on the scores was significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). (2) Compared with the scores in the pretest, both the scores of the experimental group and the comparison group on Scientific Attitude Scale became worse in the posttest. However, the experimental group’s scores in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.05). (3) The experimental group showed statistically significant improvement on the scores of Questionnaire on Argumentation Skills (p<.001) but the comparison group did not (p>.05). The experimental group’s scores in the posttest were significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.001). The experimental group’s improvement on the scores was significantly higher than the comparison group’s (p<.001). (4) Being asked to construct supportive arguments, the students in the experimental group used more new warrants, elaborated warrants or rebuttals than the students in the comparison group did.
|
|---|
