本研究之目的是以居位理論為基礎，探討大學生小組討論時，從初識到結識的歷程中，如何居位自己與居位他人；並探討持對立立場之兩組成員辯論社會科學議題時的論證歷程及辯論後的組間居位和外評。
在居位自己與居位他人方面，主要是以問卷調查的方式探得小組成員居位自己與居位他人的結果，組間的居位除了以問卷調查之外，也同時分析組間論證攻防時的話語資料。至於描述組內經由討論而慢慢形成小組的論證架構及論證的攻防呈現，則是以質性資料的分析結果為主。
研究結果發現：在組內互動的居位部份，初識時，成員間的居位結果顯示與社會基模有關，而且居位者有自謙的傾向；結識後，小組成員對自己的居位會提昇，顯示社會基模的刻板被弱化，表示結識後，組內的居位有重塑的現象。在小組論證的建構部份，小組論證架構的建立歷程中，支持宣稱的依據會先確立，待取得足夠的資料時，則進一步將資料轉換成支持理由；會設立限制條件來弱化反例的衝擊；並強調多元資料來源、重視數據及對數據解讀方式的重要性；地位的提昇與完成任務的輸出與貢獻有關，且輸出與貢獻愈大，地位提昇得愈高。在組間論證攻防與居位部份，辯士面對反例攻擊時，會提出因應的實用解決方式；呈現對比的有利數據突顯己方立場，來加強說服力；在攻防中，除了理性的論點，也會出現感性的訴求。在外評組的評價部份，除了辯士的準備度會影響外評組的支持立場之外，外評組支持立場的改變與否，和辯士如何對反例提出解決之道或反駁有關聯。顯示在科學課室虛擬現實社會的辯論場中，外評組成員展現出相對的理性。
本研究從居位的角度出發，配合Toulmin論證架構的分析，以瞭解大學生相互居位及共同建構論證的歷程。依據研究發現，對課程設計及未來研究提出建議。

The purpose of this study was to investigate college students’ positioning and argumentation based on the positioning theory. For one, the processes of how individuals positioned themselves and others were explored during the progression of getting acquaintance via the group discourse activities. For another, the argumentation process, the intergroup positioning, and the listeners’ evaluation toward the two groups in opposite positions were explored in the context of socio-scientific issue.
The results of positioning, which presented how the individuals positioned themselves, others, and different groups, were investigated by the quantitative data, a questionnaire. Besides, protocols derived from the argumentation process were analyzed. The results of how the group members co-constructed the arguments were presented by the qualitative data.
Several findings were as follows. As for the intragroup positioning, the group members had the tendency of being self-effacing, their positioning were influenced by social schema while they first met each other. After getting acquaintance, the group members’ self-positioning was improved, the influence of stereotypes relevant to social schema was reduced. This indicates that the intragroup positioning was reconstructed during the acquaintance process. As for the construction of argumentation, the results show that group members always first identified the data which corroborated the claims during debate process; the data would eventually be transferred into warrants. Furthermore, qualifiers were proposed to eliminate the efficacy of rebuttals. The importance of data diversity and data interpretation were emphasized. Moreover, the promotion of positioning was related to group members’ degree of contribution. Finally, as for the intergroup argumentation and positioning, while the group members encountered debates, they provided pragmatic resolutions to explicit the data which can be used to strengthen their argumentation. Both rational and emotional arguments were proposed during the debates. The audiences’ evaluation toward the debaters was influenced by the completeness of the debaters’ arguments and how they interpreted the counterarguments. This indicates that the audiences retained relatively rational standpoints during the virtual context of argumentation.
The study was based on the positioning theory associated with Toulmin’s scheme for argumentation to explore college students’ positioning and argumentation process. Implications for research and curriculum design were discussed.

中文部份
林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究—不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊，17(2)，111-133。
林樹聲、靳知勤(2012)。國小教師實踐社會性科學議題教學之教師知識成長與比較。科學教育學刊，20(1)，41-68。
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。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，臺北市。
洪振方、林志能(2011)。網路與課室學習環境促進學童論證能力之效益。教育實踐與研究，24(1)，67-106。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德祿、李戰子(2005)。系統功能語言學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
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。未出版之博士論文，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，臺北市。
黃俊儒、簡妙如(2010)。在科學與媒體的接壤中所開展之科學傳播研究：從科技社會公民的角色及需求出發。新聞學研究，105，127-166。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲(2007)。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，302，5-20。
黃翎斐、張文華、林陳涌(2008)。不同佈題模式對學生論證表現的影響。科學教育學刊，16(4)，375-393。
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)，1-21。
楊文金、陳世文、李哲迪、任宗浩、古智雄(2008)。以閱讀困難觀點探討漢、英語科學論述之語意差異--以觀念物理文本為例。科學教育學刊，16(2)，193-214。
葉蓉樺(1999)。國小高年級自然科學習小組織結構及其互動模式研究。未出版之博士論文，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，臺北市。
廖孟諄(2011)。社會性科學議題融入奧瑞岡式辯論活動對國小高年級學童之學習成效影響研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系，臺中市。
Weber, A. L. (1995)。社會心理學(Social Psychology；趙居蓮譯)。台北市：桂冠。(原作出版年：1992)。
英文部份
AAAS. (1994). Science for all Americans(9th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, K. T. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 291-310. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001
Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
Augoustinos, M., & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143): New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berge, M., & Danielsson, A. T. (2013). Characterising learning interactions: A study of university students solving physics problems in groups. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1177-1196.
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: Wintrop.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039-1065.
Bosch, O. J. H., King, C. A., Herbohn, J. L., Russell, I. W., & Smith, C. S. (2007). Getting the big picture in natural resource management—systems thinking as ‘method’ for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(2), 217-232.
Boxer, L. (2005). Discourses of change ownership in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 344-352.
Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
Bridgstock, M., Burch, D., Gorge, J., Laurent, J., & Lowe, I. (1998). Science, technology and society: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
Cohen, E. G. (1997a). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms : a challenge for teachers and sociologists. In E. G. Cohen & R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: sociological theory in practice (pp. 3-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G. (1997b). Understanding status problems: Sources and consequences. In E. G. Cohen & L. R. A. (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms. (pp. 61-76). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). How can conceptual change contribute to theory and practice in science education? In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 107-118): Springer Netherlands.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development: New York: Teachers College Press.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions: Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice: Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Evagorou, M., Jime´nez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). 'Should we kill the grey squirrels?' A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar(3rd Edition). London: Arnold.
Harré, R., & Langenhove, L. v. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harre & L. v. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. (pp. 1-13). Oxford: Blackwell.
Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31.
Herrick, J. A. (1998). Argumentation: Understanding and shaping argument. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.
Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject : psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen.
Jim´enez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodr´ıguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215–228.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunda, Z. (2000). The impact of motivation and affect on judgment. Social Cognition: making sense of people. (pp. 211-262). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values: Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York: Continuum.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
Moghaddam, F. M., Harré, R., & Lee, N. (2008). Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis. New York: Springer.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms: Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008). Science Competencies for tomorrow’s world. Second results from PISA 2008. Paris: Author.
Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 271–290.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Price, D. J. d. S. (1963). Little science, big science. London: Columbia University Press.
Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1997). Arbumentation and critical decision making. New York: Longman.
Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 35-54.
Sabat, S. R. (2008). Positioning and conflict involving a person with dementia: A case study. In F. M. Moghaddam, R. Harré & N. Lee (Eds.), Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 81-93). New York: Springer.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Scienec Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Schwarz, B. B., (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126): New York: Springer.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K‐8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186.
Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243-269.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. [Article]. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016076
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., . . . Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harre & L. v. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action. (pp. 14-31). Oxford: Blackwell.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: London: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. J. Zelditch (Eds.), Theortical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory. (pp. 23-63). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. (pp. 7-38). Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116): Springer Netherlands.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes3, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.