本研究欲探討合作寫作對於國小學童的科學概念學習與科學學習興趣之影響。從過
去的研究顯示寫作融入國小自然科教學中，確實有助於學生的學習，然而學者發現僅有
高學業成就的學生能從寫作中獲益，對於低學業成就者的幫助相對較少。因此，本研究
在一般的教學情況下，以高、低學業成就兩人同組方式，進行合作寫作，希望藉由合作
寫作活動來增進低學業成就者的寫作表現，更進一步提升他們的概念學習。
本研究以中型國小六年級三班為受試者，而且所有受試者皆由同一位自然科教師任
教。首先，先進行兩班實驗組學生的寫作訓練，讓學生熟悉科學寫作的功能及目的，再
學習利用寫作模版來幫助寫作工作。在四周的實驗過程中，三班受試者皆接受一般的教
學活動，但實驗組則加入寫作活動，其中一班實驗組的寫作任務由兩人共同完成，過程
中可彼此互相討論、分工合作，而另一班實驗組在沒有同儕的協助下獨立完成寫作；對
照組則進行寫習作活動。最後，利用科學概念量表與科學興趣量來測驗學生的概念學習
及科學興趣的表現，研究發現以下結果：
一、三班受試者在低層次的選擇題表現沒有顯著的差異，合作寫作及獨立寫作班級在高
層次的問答題成績則有優於對照組的傾向，但仍未達統計上的顯著水準。
二、根據科學概念量表的結果，三班受試者皆有顯著的科學概念學習。但進一步從學生
的筆記中發現，在相等寫作量的情況下，兩人合作寫作對於學生的高層次的概念學
習有正向的助益，特別是提升低學業成就學生的概念學習表現。
三、由教師的訪談得知，在實驗組A 班的學習表現及寫作內容優於實驗初期；從錄影帶
發現，合作寫作活動有助於低學業成就學生的學習表現及學習興趣。
本研究雖然兩班實驗組與對照組在概念量表的成績沒有顯著差異，但由教師的訪
談、學生的筆記及上課的錄影帶發現，合作寫作有助於低學業成就學生的概念學習及學
習興趣，其結果仍須重視。

This study investigated the effects of collaborative writing (Paired Writing) on the
science concept and attitudes to writing in elementary school students. According to past
researches, we found it is beneficial to let students write in science classes of elementary
school. However, one scholar found that high-ability students gain advantage from writing,
but it is little helpful for low-ability students by writing. Therefore, this study aimed at not
only enhancing performance of writing by collaborative writing in different-ability pairs with
fixed roles as teacher and student under normal classes, but also improving concept learning.
In this study, there were three classes of students as subjects, taught by the same one
science teacher. First of all, students in two experimental classes were trained to write for two
weeks, and let students be familiar with the function of expository writing. Then students
learned how to use the framework of SWH. During the experiment, all of subjects got access
to normal teaching, but one class of students did collaborative writing, another did individual
writing , and the other did restricted writing. After four weeks’ treatment, subjects were tested
on their conception and attitude. The results are the followings.
The result reveals that the grades of high level concept learning of experimental group
are superior to those of control group; however, grades between two experimental classes are
not significantly different.
Collaborative writing makes a positive impact on the low-ability students in terms of
writing skills, concept learning, interests in learning, and academic performance. Moreover,
high-ability students’ better concept maintenance is also presented in the result.

王貴春(2000)。STS 教學與國小學生創造力及學習態度之研究。台北市立師範學院自然
科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
吳水煌(2003)。科學寫作促進學生科學概念學習之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所
碩士論文，未出版，台北。
吳敏逸(2006)。科學寫作融入五年級自然與生活科技領域之教學研究。國立台東大學教
育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台東。
林佳全(2003)。從國中科技教育的困境看國小科技教育。生活科技教育月刊，36(5)，
17-23。
周立勳(1994)。國小班級分組合作學習之研究。國立政治大學教育學學系博士論文，未
出版，台北。
周佩儀(2002)。國小教師解讀教科書的方式。國立台北師範學院學報。15，115-138。
陳文典(2003)。「自然與生活科技」學習領域之課程及其實施。中等教育，54(3)，4-19。
陳雲珠(2004)。合作學習寫作教學對國小三年級學童寫作表現及態度影響之研究。國立
台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
郭金美(2004，11 月)。提升國小學童批判思考能力之教學研究。論文發表於自然與生活
科技學習領域教學資源中心主辦之「93 年課程研討會Π」會議，台北。
張春興(2004)。教育心理學。台北，東華。
鄭明長(2002)。發問對教學歷程之影響初探。國立台北師範學院學報，15，87-114。
Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., & Henry, S. (2000). Costs and benefits of collaborative
remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 497-507.
Baxter, G. P., Bass, K. M., & Glaser, R. (2001). Notebook writing in three fifth-grade science
classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 123-140.
Bell, E. S., & Bell, R. N. (1985). Writing and mathematics problem solving: Arguments in
favor of synthesis. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 210-221.
Carter, G., Jones, M. G., & Rua, M. (2002). Effects of partner’s ability on the achievement
and conceptual organization of high-achieving fifth-grade students. International
Journal of Science Education, 87(1), 94-111.
Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can
novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281-333.
DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom:
theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2),
119-149.
Ellis, S., & Rogoff, B. (1982). The strategies and efficacy of child versus adult teachers. Child
Development, 53, 730-735.
Gammill, D. M. (2006). Learning the write way. The reading teacher, 59(8), 754-762.
Hand, B. M., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory
reports. The Science Teacher, 66, 27-29.
Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. M. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance
learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and
qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell
biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3),
261-289.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperative in the classroom ( 7th ed.).
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into
Practice, 38(2).67-73.
Karegianes, M. L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1985). The effects of peer editig on the
writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational
Research, 73(4), 203-207.
Keys, C. W. (1999a). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge
production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130.
Keys, C. W. (1999b). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle
school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044-1061.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as
a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context the
role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Sciences, 26, 359-389.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes?
Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
McNall, S. G. (1975). Peer teaching. Teaching Sociology, 2(2), 133-146.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of
students’ preconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 87(6), 849-867.
Neale, D. C., Smith, D., & Johnson, V. G. (1990). Implementing conceptual changeteaching
in primary science. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 109-131.
Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large
classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in
Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.
The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Park, C. (2003). Engaging students in the learning process: The learning journal. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 183-199.
Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing.
International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 1-16.
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.
Rillero, P., Cleland, J., & Zambo, R. (1995, October). Write from the start: Writing-to-learn
science and mathematics. Paper presented at the National Association of Biology
Teachers National Convention, Phoenix, AZ.
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students,
including low achievers? International Journal of Science Education, 88, 420-442.
Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children’s journals in elementary
school science activities. Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 43-69.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know,
what we need to know. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from
http://www.aegean.gr/culturaltec/c_karagiannidis/2003-2004/collaborative/slavin1996.p
df
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. J. (1999). Collaborative creative writing in eight-year-olds:
Comparing cross-ability fixed role and same-ability reciprocal role pairing. Journal of
Research in Reading, 22(2), 154-179.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of
science literacy: 25years of language arts and science research. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.