本研究旨在剖析學生間面對意見衝突時，其小組內部進行協商的情形。基於此一旨趣，本研究首先從社會學、本土心理學、社會計量學等理論的文獻評析，探討小組互動時可能產生的狀況，並將其應用於實徵研究之詮釋上。
本研究對象為30位國一生，每組成員三人，共分10組。以Pontecorvo 與 Girardet所發展出的話語分類指標，將小組討論內容加以歸類統計，並輔以錄音、錄影、學生晤談等等質性資料之收集後，本研究提出以下結論：
一、本研究的小組討論存在有不平等的互動之現象，絕大多數是由高地位
的學生居領導的角色，且多方面的表現均較其他二人傑出，並影響其
小組最終共識之決定。
二、本研究對象的地位是結合學望及人望而成，兩者均對小組互動造成重
大影響力。其中，學望是大多數成員選擇領導者角色及賦予其重任的
主要考慮因素；人望則是會影響到小組討論的氣氛。
三、「少數服從多數」是大部分學生決定共識的準則，此方式雖能快速完
成小組任務，卻未必能真正說服所有的組員。若仔細觀察其互動行
為，可發現到其共識無論是由多數，抑或是少數所決定的，背後的支
持基礎都來自於高地位者的默許同意。
四、一般而言，多數學生排斥自己的意見與他人不同，尤其是低地位者，
因學生們習慣以輸、贏的觀點來看待小組討論中的論辯過程，是以，
當意見與他人不同時，易成為他人攻擊的箭靶，這時，低地位的學生
常採取沉默方式來加以應對。
五、低地位的學生未必一定是小組互動的邊緣人，拒於參與任何協商活
動，只要透過優秀學生的公開讚美..等機會，均能提高其自信心，提
升其學習興趣。

Negotiation between students in a small group is the underlying subject running throughout this study. Drawing upon the theories of sociology, cultural psychology, sociometry, etc. about negotiation and related essays, this thesis explores the situations and problems raised during groups’ resolution of conflict opinions.
Thirty seventh-grade students, divided into ten groups of three participated in this study. Each group discussed two issues given by the researcher. The processes of discussion were videoed and audio taped, and then were classified and analyzed according to Pontecorvo and Girardet’s (1993) framework. The major findings are as follows:
1. The present study reveals the asymmetric interaction within
the groups. The majority is led by the student with greater
leadership capability, who also expressed himself most of
the time and drew the final agreement.
2. Both academic and peer statuses directly affected students’
choice to listen. Academic status is the key qualification
for members to choose a group leader who dominates the
situations, while peer status affects the atmosphere of
group discussion.
3.“The decision of the majority” is a common method used by
students to reach a final agreement. It is effective but not
always persuasive. Nevertheless, an attentive observation
reveals that no matter if the final agreement comes from the
decision of the minority or the majority, the approval and
connivance of the higher status directly influence the
outcome.
4. Usually, most of the students reject to have divergent
opinions, especially those with an inferior status. That is
because they are used to focus on the outcome of the debate.
To avoid been attacked if failed, lower status students with
inferior complex easily manifest silent responses.
5. Confidence raised by promising students using praise and
good comments proves that the lower status students are not
necessarily the marginal ones, who refuse to participate in
any consultation.

王文科(1996)：教育研究法。台北：五南。
江天驥(1988)：當代西方科學哲學。台北：谷風。
吳恬妮(1999)：探討國中生生物科自我效能與學術地位之關係及其在組對
討論中的效應。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
沈文蓓(1997)：小學高年級學生小組討論之歷程分析。國立臺南師範學院
國民教育研究所碩士論文。
周玉秀(1996)：數學課堂上反映的兒童學習現象─臨床教學研究札記。台
北師院學報，9，頁53-82。
周雅容(1996)：象徵互動論與語言的社會意涵。載於胡幼慧主編，質性研
究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北：巨流圖書公司。
邱旻昇(1999)：從期望地位的觀點探討學生在科學小組討論中互動的平等
性。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
邱穗中、葉連祺(1995)：雙向度社會計量地位分類方法之比較─以國小學
生為例。國立政治大學「教育與心理研究」，18，頁19-50。
洪振方(1994)：從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建。國立臺灣
師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
高敬文(1996)：質化研究方法論。台北：師大書苑。
陳素真(1994)：電腦合作與個別學習對概念學習效果及社交、互動之影
響。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC-83-0111-S-153-004-CL。
傅大為(1988)：”Ad Hoc”假設與「局部理性」─以達爾文演化論與古生
物學二者的近代關係發展史為例。輯於台大哲學系主編，《當代西
方哲學與方法論》。台北：東大圖書公司。
曾守恆(1997)：「同儕科學家意像」對科學知識重建過程的影響分析。臺
灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文。
黃台珠、Aldridge, J. M. & Fraser, B. (1998)：台灣和西澳科學教室
環境的跨國研究：結合質性與量的研究方法。科學教育學刊，6
(4)，頁343-362。
黃光國(1993)：互動論與社會交易：社會心理學本土化的方法論問題。本
土心理學研究，2，頁94-142。
黃光國(1995)：知識與行動：中華文化傳統的社心心理詮釋。台北：心理
出版社。
黃忠雄(1997)：國中生「同儕科學家意象」對科學概念合理性判斷的影
響。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文。
黃俊儒(2000)：從社會互動與認知投入的觀點探討理化實驗課中學習機會
之分佈。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
黃俊儒、楊文金(1997a)：觀點論對於科學教育的意涵。科學教育月刊，
196，頁9-22。
黃德祥(1990)：青少年刺激尋求、社會技巧、社會行為及其相關因素之研
究。國立彰化師範大學學報，1，頁87-116。
黃德祥(1991)：社會計量地位分類之研究。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，38，
頁53-69。
楊文金(1996a)：比較、社會比較、與科學學習的動機。科學教育月刊，
195，頁2-16。
楊文金(1997)：社會類別對信念選擇的影響分析。科學教育學刊，5(1)，
頁1-21。
楊文金(1998b)：從「社會認同」探討「科學家意像」的意義。科學教育
月刊，206，頁3-10。
楊文金(1998c)：「同儕科學家意像」對訊息合理性判斷的影響分析。師
大學報：科學教育類，43(1)，頁1-17。
楊文金(1999a)：「學生像科學家」的類比分析。論文發於1999科學史、
哲與科學教育學術研討暨研習會。高雄：國立高雄師範大學。
楊莉川(1997)：從社會認同理論探討高中生傾向科學的態度。國立臺灣師
範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
葉蓉樺、羅文杰(2001)：從一個國小六年級的班級討論分析不同「同儕科
學家意像」類別學童之互動特徵。科學教育研究：理論與實務，
1，頁45-56。
趙金祁、許榮富、黃芳裕(1992)：科學哲學對科學知識主體主張之演變。
科學教育月刊，154，頁2-18。
蔣佳玲(1999)：從權力的觀點探討學生在小組互動中科學知識的建構。國
立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
蔣佳玲、郭重吉(1996)：國小自然科分組教學中互動內容之類型分析。論
文發表於第十二屆科學教育學術研討會。彰化：國立彰化師範大
學。
蔣佳玲、郭重吉(1998)：應用社會圖探討小組中的互動關係。第十四屆科
學教育學術研討會短篇論文彙編，頁285-292。
錢俊譯(Dreyfus, H. L. & Rabinow, P. 著)(1995)。傅柯─超越結構主
義與詮釋學。台北：桂冠。
羅文杰(1998)：兩種「班級結構」分類法在國小「同儕科學家意象」的維
度上之比較分析。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in
physics: Peer inter action modes in pairs and fours. Journal
of research in science teaching , 33(10), pp.1099-1114.
Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I.(1995). Social cognition : An
intergrated introduction. London: SAGE.
Berger, J., Conner, T. L.,(1974). Performance expectations and
behavior in small groups: A revised formulation. In J.
Berger, T.L. Conner, M. H. Fisek(Eds.), Expectation states
theory: A theoretical research program(pp.85-109). Cambridge,
MA: Winthrop.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H. (1974). A generalization of the theory
of status characteristics and expectation states. In J.
Berger, T. L. Conner, & M.H. Fisek(Eds.), Expectation states
theory: A theoretical research program(pp.163-205).
Cambridge, MA：Winthrop.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., Zelditch , M., Jr. (1985).
Expectation States Theory : Review and Assessment. In J.
Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds). Status, rewards, and
influence: How expectations organize behavior(pp.1-72). CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bianchini, J. A.(1997). Where knowledge construction, equity,
and context intersect: Student learning of science in small
groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10),
pp.1039-1065.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism.
London：Routledge. Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On
understanding the nature of science knowledge. Educational
Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The languade of
teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann. (蔡敏玲、彭海
燕譯，1998，教室言談：教與學的語言。台北：心理出版社)
Cohen, E. G.(1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the
heterogeneous classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G.(1997). Understanding status problems: Sources and
consequences. In E. G. Cohen, R. A. Lotan(Eds.), Working for
equity in heterogeneous classrooms (pp.61-76), New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status
interaction in the Heterogeneous classroom. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(1), pp.99-120.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.)(1997a). Working for equity
in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in action.
New York：Teachers College Press.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among
three approaches to peer education. International Journal of
Eductional Research, 13, pp.9-19.
Daniels, H.(Ed.)(1993). Charting the agenda: Educational
activity after Vygotsky. New York: Routledge.
Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in
school classrooms. In R. Millar(Ed.), Doing science: Images
of science in science education. PA：Falmer.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge : The
development of understanding in the classroom. London：
Routledge.
Flanders, N. A.(1970). Analysing Teacher Behavior. Reading,
Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many
forms of constructivism, Science & Education, 6,pp.15-28.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach.
Chicago and London：The University of Chicago Press.
Hanson, C. (1985). Individualism in Chinese Thought. In D. J.
Munro(ed.),Individualism and Holism(pp.35-56). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Hogan, K. (1998). Sociocognitive roles in science group
discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8),
855-882.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and
alone: cooperative, competitive, & individualistic learning.
(4th ed.). Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1986). Academic
conflict among students: Controversy and learning. In R. S.
Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of education. New York：
Cambridge University Press.
Jones, M. G. & Carter, G. (1994). Verbal and nonverbal behavior
of ability-grouped dyads. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31(6), 603-619.
Kelly, G. J. & Chen, C. (1999).The sound of music: Constructing
science as sociocultural practices through oral and written
discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 36
(8),883-915.
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic
investigation of the discourse processes of school science.
Science Education, 81,pp.533-559.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching
and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77
(3),pp.319-337.
Leal-Idrogo, A. (1997). The effect of gender on interaction,
friendship, and leadership in elementary school classrooms.
In E. G. Cohen & R. A. Lotan (Eds.). Working for equity in
heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice.
NY：Teachers College Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and
value. Norwood,NJ：Ablex.
Lonning, R. A. (1993). Effect of cooperative learning
strategies on student verbal interactions and achievement
during conceptual change instruction in 10th grade general
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9),
pp.1087-1101.
Lotan, R. A. (1997). Complex instruction: An overview. In E. G.
Cohen & R. A. Lotan(Eds.), Working for equity in
heterogeneous classroom (pp.15-30). NY：Teacher college,
Columbia University.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers,
B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-
analysis. Review of educational research, 66(4),pp.423-458.
Loving, C. C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A
philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of
research in science teaching, 28(9),pp. 823-838.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.胡容、王小章(譯)，心靈、自我與社會。台北：桂
冠。
Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and
empirical investigations. Chicago：The University of Chicago
Press.
Meyer, K. & Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven
explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 107-
127.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M.(1984). Social constraints
in laboratory and classroom tasks. In B. Rogoff & Lave, J.
(Eds.). Everyday Cognition, pp.173-193. MA：Harvard
University.
Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive
development in children. N. Y.：Academic Press.
Pizzini, E. L., & Shepardson, D. P. (1992). A comparison of the
classroom dynamics of a problem-solving and traditional
laboratory model of instruction using path analysis. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), pp.243-258.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H.(1993). Arguing and reasoning in
understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction,
11, pp.365-395.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J.(1996). Making meaning in classroom:
Social processes in Small group discourse and scientific
knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
33(8), pp.839-858.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Modifying status expectations in the
traditional classroom. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.),
Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize
behavior. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roth, W.-M. & Bowen, G. M.(1995). Knowing and interacting: A
study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-
inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive
apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13(1), 73-
128.
Roth, W.-M. (1995).Authentic school science-knowing and
learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht：
Kluwer.
Shepardson, D. P. (1996). Social interactions and the mediation
of science learning in two small groups of first-grader.
Journal of research in science teaching, 33(2), pp.159-178.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of
pupil’s understanding of science, Studies in Science
Education, 14, pp.63-82.
Solomon, J. (1989).The social construction of school science.
In R. Millar(Ed.),Doing science:Images of science in science
education. London: Falmer Press.
Solomon, J. (1994a). The Rise and Fall of Constructivism,
Studies in Science Education, 23, 1-19.
Solomon, J. (1994b). Group discussions in the classroom. In R.
Levinson(Ed.). Teaching Science. London：Routledge.
Streibel, M. J.(1996). Queries about computer education and
situated critical pedagogy. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated
learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey：
Educational Technology Publications.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Cognition, construction of
knowledge, and teaching. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 294754.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of
knowing and learning. Washington, DC.：The Falmer Press.
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics
theory: the growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch,
Jr.(Eds.). Theoretical research programs: studies in the
growth of theory. CA：Stanford University Press.
Weinstein, C. S. (1991). The classroom as a social context for
learning. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 42, pp.493-525.
Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, J. F. (1984). The creation
of context in joint problem-solving. In B. Rogoff & Lave, J.
(Eds.),Everyday Cognition, pp.151-171. MA：Harvard University.
Woodruff, E. & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and
inter-group discourse: Students building knowledge in the
science classroom.Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25-39.