議論文是一種能夠訓練學生邏輯思考的文體，然而在台灣國中的國文課程中，議論文所佔的比例少之又少。學生缺乏議論文的學習機會，更是缺乏論證與高層次思考的能力，又因課程緊湊，讓教師沒有額外的時間進行議論文教學。隨著教學環境的改變，課程的準備也成為教學的困難點之一。本研究期望能夠解決這些問題，因此參考眾多議論文教學之研究，以「論點─理由─證據」之模式進行議論文教學，幫助學生在閱讀議論文時先掌握架構，並且以資訊技術建構一套議論文閱讀素養學習系統來支援此教學模式，透過系統不僅讓學生能夠在課餘時間進行學習活動，更增加學生學習議論文與培養論證與思考等素養之機會，此外，教師亦能在系統當中進行教材編輯的動作，讓製作教材與課程準備的負擔降低。
以完整的系統開發來看，本研究仍屬前導階段，以「論點─理由─證據」教學模式以及對應之系統框架進行訪談與使用者意見調查，期望能夠獲得更廣泛之意見做為日後改進方向。本研究共訪談了六位任教於國中之國文科教師，同時也以問卷的方式蒐集了八十九位國中七年級之學生之意見。從訪談教師與學生問卷中反映的意見來看，本研究所使用之「論點─理由─證據」教學模式是適用於議論文教學的，系統的搭配對於學生來說也是有幫助且實用的，在教材編製工具上也能夠降低教師製作教材的負擔。從研究結果所獲得的意見來看，對於本研究的評價皆屬正向，但是實際的效益還需日後進行大規模實驗才能驗證。

Argumentation is seem to foster the logical thinking. However, junior high school students in Taiwan get few chances to learn argumentation due to the lack of argumentation learning in Chinese courses, so do they lack the competency of argument and logical thinking. Also, teachers have no extra time to teach argumentation because they pay more attention on following the progress of the curriculum. On the other hand, the change of teaching environments makes the lesson preparation harder. In this study, we are trying to deal with these problems. Based on the previous researches, we proposed a “Claim-Reason-Evidence” teaching model to help students first seize the structure once they read an argumentation essay. We also constructed a tutoring system with ICT to tie in this model to make chances for students to learn argumentation and learn in extracurricular time. Furthermore, teachers could easily do the preparation of the lesson through this system.
From the view of the system development process, this is only a pilot study and thus we hope to obtain more and more suggestions to make this study better in the future. We based on the “Claim-Reason-Evidence” teaching model and the framework of the tutoring system to do the interviews and obtain the user experience. We interviewed six Chinese teachers teaching in junior high schools in Taiwan. At the same time, we investigated eighty-two 7th grade students about their opinions via questionnaires. Based on the teachers and the students’ comments, the “Claim-Reason-Evidence” teaching model is adequate to argumentation teaching and the tutoring system is also beneficial and useful to the students. Also, the tool we made for the lesson preparation is helpful. From the result of the interviews and questionnaires, all the opinions and comments were positive. However, the practical result should be verified through large-scale experiments.

Aamodt Agnar, and Enric Plaza. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI communications, 7(1), pp. 39-59.
Barron, R. F. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H. L. Herber, & R. T. Vacca, Research in reading in the content areas: First year report Syracuse. NY: Syracuse University Reading and Language Arts Center.
Birgitta Kopp, & Heinz Mandl. (2011). Fostering argument justification using collaboration scripts and content schemes. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), pp. 636-649.
Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 778-807.
Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), pp. 91-115.
Daniel H. Robinson, & Kenneth A. Kiewra. (1995). Visual argument Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), pp. 455-467.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340.
E. Michael Nussbaum, & Gregory Schraw. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), pp. 59-92.
Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., & van den Broek, P. (1999). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1988). Impact of diagrams on recalling sequential elements in expository texts. Reading Psychology, 9, pp. 121-139.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students' comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, pp. 236-247.
L. Hirsch, M. Saeedi, J. Cornillon & L. Litosseliti. (2004). A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, pp. 72-80.
Lisette Munneke, Marije van Amelsvoort, & Jerry Andriessen. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, pp. 113-131.
Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), pp. 38-48.
M. Anne Britt and Aaron A. Larson. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), pp. 794-810.
Mark K. Felton, & Suzanne Herko. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument Scaffoding adolescents' persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, pp. 672-683.
Meredith Larson, M.Anne Britt and Aaron A. Larson. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), pp. 205-224.
Perry D. Klein and Mary A. Rose. (2010). Teaching Argument and Explanation to Prepare Junior Students for Writing to Learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), pp. 433-461.
Suthers, D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers, Arguing to Learn. Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
T. Salminen, M. Marttunen & L. Laurinen. (2010). Visualizing knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), pp. 379-391.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). England: Cambridge University Press.
Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27, pp. 95-116.
Van Amelsvoort M., Andriessen J. & Kanselaar G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, pp. 1293-1313.
Van Drie J., van Boxtel C., Jaspers J. & Kanselaar G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, pp. 575-602.
Wendy Morgan, & Glenn Beaumont. (2003). A dialogic approach to argumentation using a chat room to develop early adolescent students' argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, pp. 146-157.
Zumbach, J. (2009). The role of graphical and text based argumentation tools in hypermedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), pp. 811-817.
王鼎鈞. (2007). 作文七巧. 台北市: 大地出版社.
王鼎鈞. (2007). 講理. 台北市: 爾雅出版社.
何三本. (2006). 九年一貫語文教育理論與實務. 台北市: 五南出版社.
宋璦玲. (2012). 在Group Scribbles平台上以VSPOW模式進行國小高年級議論文協作寫作研究. 碩士論文, 新竹教育大學.
李博文. (2002). 國小高年級學生議論文寫作教學. 碩士論文, 國立屏東師範學院.
洪順隆. (2009). 歷代文選. 台北市: 五南出版社.
陳麗雲. (2009年4月). 國立台北教育大學進修學院進修推廣中心語文創作電子報. 擷取自 http://dice.ntue.edu.tw/epaper/2009may/2009maywri.htm
臺灣PISA國家研究中心/主編. (2011). 臺灣PISA 2009結果報告. 台北市: 心理出版社.
劉忠惠. (1996). 寫作指導. 高雄市: 麗文出版社.