在合作探究的科学活动中培养小学生的科学推理分析能力外文翻译资料

在合作探究的科学活动中培养小学生的科学推理分析能力

Robyn M. Gillies, Kim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh, Michele Haynes

摘要：如果孩子们要学会有效地交流和推理，教导孩子问和回答问题是至关重要的，特别是在探究式的科学中，他们被要求调查主题，考虑其他的命题和假设，并一起解决问题，提出答案，解释，和预测问题。这项研究涉及108名学生（53名男生和55名女生），他们来自澳大利亚布里斯班的5所小学7年级的7年级教师教室。教师被随机分配到两种情况中的一种：元认知质疑条件（训练条件）或指令性质疑条件（未经训练的条件）。学生的话语、推理和解决问题（RP-S）的数据在1和2中被收集。结果表明，在时间1的两种情况下，学生的话语类别有显著的差异，唯一显著的区别是在时间2的提问行为中，学生在训练条件下继续问比未受过训练的同学更多的问题。结果表明，在时间1的两种情况下，学生的话语类别有显著的差异，唯一显著的区别是在时间2的提问行为中，学生在训练条件下继续问比未受过训练的同学更多的问题。考虑到这些学生被教导要特别地问“思考”问题，这些问题调查和审问信息，这些结果并不令人惊讶。在小组讨论过程中，对学生们的讨论进行了后续的考察，说明了这些学生是如何相互交流来探究和询问信息的，他们提供了解释和理由，让他们的思维变得清晰，并通过类比来口头表达他们试图表达的概念。后续推理和解决问题（RP-S）的结果表明，在训练和未经训练的条件下，学生在1到2的时间内提高了分数，尽管在不同的条件下变化并没有显著的差异。

Abstract：Teaching children to ask and answer questions is critically important if they are to learn to talk and reason effectively together, particularly during inquiry-based science where they are required to investigate topics, consider alternative propositions and hypotheses, and problem-solve together to propose answers, explanations, and prediction to problems at hand. This study involved 108 students (53 boys and 55 girls) from seven, Year 7 teachersrsquo; classrooms in five primary schools in Brisbane, Australia. Teachers were randomly allocated by school to one of two conditions: the metacognitive questioning condition (Trained condition) or the prescriptive questioning condition (Untrained condition). Data on studentsrsquo; discourse and reasoning and problem-solving (RP-S) were collected across Times 1 and 2. The results showed that while there were significant differences in the discourse categories of the students in the two conditions at Time 1, the only significant difference was in questioning behaviour at Time 2 with the students in the trained condition continuing to ask more questions than their untrained peers. Given that these students had been taught to specifically ask lsquo;thinkingrsquo; questions that probed and interrogated information, these results are not surprising. A follow-up examination of studentsrsquo; discourse during their small group discussions illustrated how these students interacted with each other to probe and interrogate information by providing explanations and reasons to make their thinking explicit and by using analogies to verbally represent concepts they were trying to express. Results on the follow-up reasoning and problem-solving (RP-S) tasks indicated that students in the Trained and Untrained conditions improved their scores from Time 1 to Time 2 although the change was not significantly different between conditions.

关键词：科学推理和话语；基于探究科学的合作学习。

Keywords: Scientific reasoning and discourse ;Cooperative learning Inquiry-based science.

一、概述：对话教学的重要性

近年来，人们的注意力集中在“教师-学生”对话上（通常被称为“对话式谈话”）。尤其是当“谈话”作为一种学习工具，对学生提升推理、解决问题能力的影响（Mercer, 2008a; Wegerif, Littleton, Dawes, Mercer, amp; Rowe, 2004）。已有学者对“社会互动在儿童思维发展过程中起到的关键作用”进行记载研究,例如,研究如何进行探究性对话,通过这种方法教学生如何与他人进行具有批判性且建设性对话,以此促进思维和推理能力(Rojas-Drummond, Perez, Velez, Gomez, amp; Mendoza, 2003; Wegerif et al., 2004），而Anderson等人（2001b）则展示了孩子们在一起对话时是如何发展出论证策略的。

Topping和Trickey (2006amp;2007) 使用了一种叫做“思考技能”的干预，这种干预是基于Lipman（1988）对儿童哲学（P4C）的研究。在这项研究中，孩子们通过教师搭建的支架，进行能促进对正在讨论问题更深层次理解的相互对话。研究发现，学生们展示出了较好的认知和社会成果，这些成果不仅在两年后得以维持，而且在学校的环境中也得以传承。类似地，Gillies（2004）、Gillies和Haynes（2011）在研究中，指导教师运用促进学生思考和学习的特定沟通策略进行教学。研究表明，这种教学能促进学生之间的更详细的讨论，并提高了其后续推理和解决问题的能力。简而言之，Mercer等人、Wegerif等人、Anderson等人、Topping等人以及Gillies和Haynes（2011）强调了教导学生如何进行对话以促进思考、解决问题和推理的重要性。

（一）质疑的作用

如果要孩子们学会有效沟通和推理，教导孩子问和回答问题是至关重要的。特别是在探究式的科学中：孩子们被要求调查话题，考虑其他的命题和假设，并一起解决问题，达成一个一致的解决方案（Gillies, 2011; Gillies, Nichols, Burgh, amp; Haynes, 2012）。虽然儿童的好奇心被广泛认为是课堂调查的自然资源，但人们已经认识到，儿童不会自发地问和探求他们自己的学习问题（Meloth and Deering, 1999; Zuckerman, Chudinova, amp; Khavkin, 1998）。他们一般不会问引人深思的问题，除非特别引导，否则不会自发地使用和激活他们先前的知识;然而，当他们这样做的时候，就能学得更深入了（King，1999）。

然而，遗憾的是，许多教师往往不去模拟如何提问和回答学生追问的问题，他们更倾向于参与“发起——反应——反馈”（IRF）的互动。在这种互动中，孩子们只被期望对老师提出的问题做出低层次的思考反应（Herbal-Eisenmann amp; Breyfogle, 2005）。在一项关于小学数学教室中教师和学生互动模式的研究中，Wimer、Ridenour、Thomas和Place（2001）发现，只有大约15%的教师会提一些高阶问题，或是要求孩子们批判性地思考正在讨论的话题。在一项针对小学教师提问行为的研究中，Galton、Hargreves、Comber、Wall和Pell（1999）也指出，儿童很少被问及具有挑战性的问题，他们很少被要求对这些问题进行批判性思考，并为他们的回答辩护。这就产生了一个难题，因为Webb等人（2008）发现，当“问题——答案”序列类似于IRF相互作用时，教师将“老师”作为一个积极的问题解决者的角色，以及学生作为教师指导的“被动”接受者的角色。不幸的是，当这种互动模式发生时，学生们会在他们的小团体中模仿这种互动方式，学生之间通常也会提供低层次的帮助，而不是解释，接受帮助的学生则是这种帮助的被动接受者。在大多数情况下，学生很少分享他们的想法或解决问题的策略，或者探究彼此的想法。有趣的是，当老师们问一些高水平的问题来挑战学生的思维时，学生们确实会向他们的同龄人提供更详细的帮助和解答，这对他们的学习有积极的影响（Gillies, 2004; Gillies amp; Khan, 2008; Webb, 2009)。

（二）探究科学课堂中的提问

毫无疑问，提出高水平的问题会让学生们进行思考，学生会根据已有知识水平来阐释他们的理解，这样他们就能学会更多地参与讨论和思考，不是仅学习“是什么”，更多的是去思考“如何”和“为什么”（Scott，Mortimer，amp;Aguiar，2006）。Van Zee、Iwasky、Kurose、Simpson和Wild（2001）发现，当教师建立起明确引出学生问题的话语结构时（例如学生生成的探究科学讨论），让他们参与到熟悉环境的对话中（例如利用之前的知识和经验），创造出舒适的话语环境来帮助学生理解彼此的想法，学生们则更有可能通过解释他们的想法和互相提问来表现出深思熟虑的能力。这样做的过程中，他们更有可能反思自己的假设、主张和对构建科学论据的授权。

Erdogan and Campbell (2008)对教师提问和互动模式进行了调查，这些不同的课堂实践建立教师建构的不同话语结构上。他们发现，在课堂上，如果教师提供了高水平的建构教学实践，使学生们与他们的同龄人进行积极的调查，而不是像传统意义那样，教师仅提供低水平的建构教学实践，课堂上以教师单向传授为主。那么当学生被问及更多的问题时，他们会提出大量的开放式问题，这些问题的目的是完成他们自己对知识的理解和建构。

然而，尽管有大量的证据表明，提出更高层次的、开放式的问题有可能促进学生的更高层次的推理和解决问题的能力。但在与学生交流时，老师们仍然很难使用这些类型的问题。例如，Reinsvold和Cochran（2011）在研究权力动力学以及小学教师的课堂提问时发现，他们所观察到的课堂讨论仍倾向于教师控制，而学生的主题话语似乎只依赖于封闭的提问。作者的结论是：尽管在这个案例中，教师提出探究性提问并且更关注学生学习过程，同时强调了开放式“思考”问题的重要性，但老师提高学生的高级推理能力可能比预期的要少得多。这些发现使作者得出结论，如果要帮助教师满足学生的需求，并增进所有学习者对科学的深入理解，可能有必要帮助教师为特定的环境创造特定类型的开放式问题。

Franke等人(2009)也曾指出类似的观察,虽然教师能够随时问一些问题，进而引发学生对数学的思考，但他们通常纠结于如何跟进学生的想法。此时如果给教师提供更专业的课堂追问结构，或许可以帮助老师进一步思考如何持续高质量的提问，以此帮助学生更好地进行数学理解。Martin和Hand（2009）发现，在一个有经验的初级教师专业发展中，她花了1年半的时间来改变她的教学实践。在课堂上，她作为老师，努力促进学生和学生之间对话。这种改变卓有成效。因而Martin和Hand认为，创造课堂上学生之间高质量的对话活动，教师角色的转变必不可少。Treagust（2007）通过对大量科学课堂教学的综合研究中发现，教师的课堂提问直接影响课堂讨论，更高层次的提问已经被证明可以提高科学课堂上谈话的频率和质量。

（三）语言工具来促进高层次的提问

研究表明：在小组讨论过程中，教师对如何提问提供指导，对帮助学生进行高层次的思考、解决问题和学习（ Gilliesamp; Haynes，2011；Gillies amp; Khan，2008）至关

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

附外文文献原文:

Primary studentsrsquo; scientific reasoning and discourse during cooperative inquiry-based science activities

Robyn M. Gillies, Kim Nichols, Gilbert Burgh, Michele Haynes

The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

Abstract:

Teaching children to ask and answer questions is critically important if they are to learn to talk and reason effectively together, particularly during inquiry-based science where they are required to investigate topics, consider alternative propositions and hypotheses, and problem-solve together to propose answers, explanations, and prediction to problems at hand. This study involved 108 students (53 boys and 55 girls) from seven, Year 7 teachersrsquo; classrooms in five primary schools in Brisbane, Australia. Teachers were randomly allocated by school to one of two conditions: the metacognitive questioning condition (Trained condition) or the prescriptive questioning condition (Untrained condition). Data on studentsrsquo; discourse and reasoning and problem-solving (RP-S) were collected across Times 1 and 2. The results showed that while there were significant differences in the discourse categories of the students in the two conditions at Time 1, the only significant difference was in questioning behaviour at Time 2 with the students in the trained condition continuing to ask more questions than their untrained peers. Given that these students had been taught to specifically ask lsquo;thinkingrsquo; questions that probed and interrogated information, these results are not surprising. A follow-up examination of studentsrsquo; discourse during their small group discussions illustrated how these students interacted with each other to probe and interrogate information by providing explanations and reasons to make their thinking explicit and by using analogies to verbally represent concepts they were trying to express. Results on the follow-up reasoning and problem-solving (RP-S) tasks indicated that students in the Trained and Untrained conditions improved their scores from Time 1 to Time 2 although the change was not significantly different between conditions.

Keywords：

Scientific reasoning and discourse ；Cooperative learning； Inquiry-based science

1. Introduction: importance of dialogic talk

Attention in recent years has focused on teacher–student dialogue, commonly referred to as lsquo;dialogic talkrsquo; and the effect it has on studentsrsquo; capacities to use talk as a tool to promote reasoning, problem-solving and learning (Mercer, 2008a; Wegerif, Littleton, Dawes, Mercer, amp; Rowe, 2004). The key role that social interaction plays in the development of childrenrsquo;s thinking has been documented in studies that have, for example, examined how exploratory talk, an approach that teaches students how to engage in critical but constructive dialogues with each other, can be used to promote thinking and reasoning (Rojas-Drummond, Perez, Velez, Gomez, amp; Mendoza, 2003; Wegerif et al., 2004) while others such as Anderson et al. (2001b) have shown how children develop argument stratagems from collaborative reasoning experiences when they dialogue together.

Topping and Trickey (2007) and Trickey and Topping (2006) used a lsquo;thinking skillsrsquo; intervention called Collaborative Philosophical Enquiry based on Lipmanrsquo;s (1988) Philosophy for Children (P4C). Here children are taught through teacher scaffolding to engage in reciprocal dialogues designed to promote deeper understandings on issues under discussion and found that the students demonstrated cognitive and social gains and these gains were not only maintained two years later but also transferred across school contexts. Similarly, Gillies (2004) and Gillies and Haynes (2011) focused on teaching teachers specific communication strategies designed to promote thinking and learning in their students and reported how, this training, in turn, promoted more elaborative discussions among students and higher scores on follow-up reasoning and problem-solving tasks. In short, Mercer et al., Wegerif et al., Anderson et al., Topping et al., and Gillies and Haynes (2011), highlight the importance of teaching students how to dialogue together to promote thinking, problem-solving and reasoning.

1.1. The role of questioning

Teaching children to ask and answer questions is critically important if they are to learn to talk and reason effectively together, particularly during inquiry-based science where children are required to investigate topics, consider alternative propositions and hypotheses, and problem-solve together to arrive at an agreed solution (Gillies, 2011; Gillies, Nichols, Burgh, amp; Haynes, 2012). While childrenrsquo;s curiosity is widely considered to be a natural resource for classroom inquiry, it is well recognized that children do not spontaneously ask and pursue questions about their own learning (Meloth and Deering, 1999; Zuckerman, Chudinova, amp; Khavkin, 1998). They generally do not ask thought-provoking questions, and do not spontaneously use and activate their prior knowledge unless specifically guided to do so; however, when they did, it predicted the learning that occurred (King, 1999).

Sadly though, many teachers often do not model how to ask and answer thought-provoking questions, preferring to engage in initiation–response–feedback (IRF) interactions where children are only expected to provide low-level thinking responses to the teacherrsquo;s questions (Herbal-Eisenmann amp; Breyfogle, 2005). In a study of the interaction patterns of t

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[278019]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word