第五章 結論與建議
第二節 建議
根據研究結果分析與討論，提出以下建議做為實施教學和未來研究的建議：
一、 對教師教學的建議
(一)、 結合學生生活經驗的社會性科學議題並採用不同的鷹架教學策略 由研究結果分析發現：
1. 學生經歷社會性科學議題「核能發電」教學前、後，在核能發電知 識認知層面成長顯著，由此可知只要編製適合學生認知層次和生活 經驗的社會性科學議題教材進行教學，學生均可獲得認知上的成 長。
2. 在議題部份，建議可以選擇在地性、本土性與學生生活息息切身相 關的社會性科學議題資訊，為學生提供有意義的學習情境，符合學 生認知層級和結合學生生活經驗中實際發生的案例，與學生的生活 較為貼近有興趣的議題。
3. 在實際教學時，蒐集及運用社會性科學議題教學資訊，要視學生的 反應適時修改調整適合學生學習階段的教學方案策略以及教材的 內容。
4. 使用符合學生需求的鷹架給予學生指導，教師是很重要的引導者，
做適當的轉化及適時的引導，引導學生不偏離主題，幫助學生聚焦 於社會性科學議題的學習上，時時提醒學生「開放性問題沒有固定 標準答案」，讓學生以不同的多元角度思考問題。
5. 藉由這樣的社會性科學議題教學學習，可以讓學生對於所處的社會 及環境多些關注，讓學生獲得多元化的資訊與不同的立場和觀點，
刺激學生多元化的思考，以及提升學生對議題知識的認知與增加非 制式推理思考的能力。
(二)、 建立社會性科學議題線上探究教學系統網路平台和資料庫
1. 網路上資料的來源廣泛，而且，其正確性亦有多待商榷，建議建置 一個社會性科學議題線上探究教學學習系統網路平台和資料庫，幫 助學生做相關資料的選用蒐集，引導學生搜尋資料歸類彙整，讓學 生可以運用系統網路平台和資料庫來進行科學議題的學習，進而將
科學學習應用與推廣。
2. 社會性科學議題線上探究教學系統網路平台，也能讓學生在網路線 上有適當空間及充足彈性時間，反覆進行同步或非同步的科學議題 學習討論，讓學生更能瞭解議題學習的內容，並且獲得多元資訊與 不同立場和觀點，刺激學生多元化角度的思考，亦可以研究探討這 樣的教學方式，對促進學生非制式推理思考能力各向度成長的影 響。
二、 對未來研究的建議
(一)、 擴展研究的樣本，針對同年級但不同區域鄉鎮之研究對象
社會性科學議題因個人成長經驗、家庭背景、文化環境或所持立場之不同而 有不同觀點以及處理解決之方式，對同一個議題可能會有不同的考量觀點看法與 抉擇。在本研究中發現，經由本次線上探究鷹架學習單的輔助可以提升學生線上 探究的能力，因此建議未來教師可以參考本研究的課程將「核能發電」線上探究 學習單因個人需求而加以修改或增補，使其符合推廣至同年級不同鄉鎮、地區的 研究對象，進行相關教學研究，訓練學生線上探究能力，以增加學生獲取資訊及 使用資訊的能力。進一步探討比較不同地區的學生分為都會區、偏遠地區及特偏 地區面對相同議題時抉擇理由的異同，以及研究學生非制式推理思考是否有城鄉 差距的存在。
(二)、 安排研究的時間，受限於學校課程時間，可安排在暑輔或寒輔 教師應該想辦法設計更有趣的探究課程，以提升學生探究的興趣和探究的收 穫。除了選擇學生有興趣的議題外，更重要的是教學情境與課程時間的安排，由 於社會性科學議題著重在使學生討論、思考，因此，需要學生清醒的思考頭腦以 及良好的學習活動力。然而，往往研究教學時間因受限於學校課程時間短暫的考 量，建議未來對學生線上探究的訓練，應研發最適當的學習探究時間，以免造成 因為時間過短探究成效不高，或者是因時間過長學生不耐煩而造成探究的疲乏感 等反效果。因此，可以計畫安排在時間較多且密集的暑期輔導或寒假輔導，來辦 理線上探究社會性科學議題的小營隊，對學生實驗操作或師生討論的時間可以做 更好的掌控。
參考文獻
臺中市教育局。數位教學平台。取自 http://elesson.tc.edu.tw/md221/
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中（2007）。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相 關性探討。科學教育學刊，15(3)，335-365。
英文部分：
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in
socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
Berk, L. E., ＆ Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: Naeyc.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I. G. J. H., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: analysis of a complex cognitive skill.
Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487-508. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005 Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715-729.
Dias, P., Gomes,M. J., & Correia, A. P. (1999). Disorientation in hypermedia environments:mechanisms to support navigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 93–117.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of scince.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the rasch partial credit model.
Science Education, 94(2), 230-258.
Eisenberg,M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information problem-solving:The Big Six Skills approach to library & information skills instruction.Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Thompson, V. A. (2004). Informal reasoning: Theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 69-74.
Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and Instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Hedegaard, M. (2005). The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky. (pp. 227-252). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Hill, J. R. (1999). A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Information Seeking in Open-Ended Information Systems. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47(1), p5-27.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64.
Hoffman, J. L. (1999). Information-Seeking Stargies And Science Content
Understandings Of Sixth Garde Students Using On-Line Learning Envionments.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hoffman, J. L.,Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S.,&Soloway, E. (2003).The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
Jacobson, T., & Cohen, L. (2002). Evaluate internet resource. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from http://library.albany.edu/internet/evaluate.html
Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of knowledge in research on students' understanding of the greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and their consequences for representations of knowing. Science Education, 93, 978-995.
Jean-Francois, R. (2003). What was I looking for? The influence of task specificity and prior knowledge on students’ search strategies in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 15, 409-428.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
Jukes, I. (2000). NetSaavy: Building information literacy in the classroom.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.
Knezek, G.., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 369-376.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
Kuechler, M. (1999). Using the Web in the classroom. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 144-161.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74-103.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285-328.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2008). Students' use of Web literacy skills and strategies: searching, reading and evaluating Web information. Information Research, 13(3), 5.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2009). Developing Web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 52(3), 668–680.
Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research.
New Work: Cambridge.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.
McDowell, L. (2002). Electronic information resources in undergraduate education:
an exploratory study of opportunities for student learning and independence.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 255-266.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels.
Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459--479.
Morrison, J. L., Kim, H.-S., & Kydd, C. (1998). Student preferences for cybersearch strategies：Impact on critical evaluation of sources. Educationa for Business, 73(5), 264-268.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: 3 Years Later. NCES 2000-154. Washington, DC:NCES.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
Ngeow, K., & Kong, Y. S. (2001). Learning to learn: Preparing teachers and students for problem-based learning. Retrieved from ERIC database.( ED 457524) Perkins, D. N. (1985). Post-primary education has little impact upon informal
reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571.
Perkins, D. N. (1996). Teaching for Understanding. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, New York.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Puustinen, M., & Rouet, J. F. (2009). Learning with new technologies: Help seeking and information searching revisited. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1014-1019.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding.
Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social
constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp.6-42). Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Roth, W. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768-790.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers & Education, 44(1), 1–34.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio
scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 68-72.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 88, 683-706.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51-80.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of the Internet as an ‘epistemological’tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 525-536.
Tweney, R. D. (1991). Informal reasoning in science. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J.
W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp.3-16). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Translated by Knox and Carol. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web:
students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104.
Wertsch, J. M. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163-1187.
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). The effects of different on-line searching activities on high school students’ cognitive structures and informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 41, 771-785.
Yang, F. Y. (2004). Exploring high school students’ use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1345-1364.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 77-101.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas.
Science Education, 86, 343-367.
Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196.
附錄
附錄 A「核能發電」議題非制式推理思考開放性問卷
「核能發電」議題非制式推理思考開放性問卷
班級： 座號： 姓名： 性別：
1. 你 □贊成 □不贊成 台灣增蓋核能發電廠以解決供電的問題？
為什麼？請你寫下你的理由或論點（愈多愈好）。
2. 如果有人對於增蓋核能發電廠所持的立場跟你不同，你覺得他可能持的論
點或說法有哪些？（愈多愈好）
3. 承上題，如果有人對於應該不應該增蓋核能發電廠跟你持不同的立場，針
對他的觀點(如上題)，你會分別提出什麼樣的論點來反駁他呢？
（愈多愈好）
關鍵字：
附錄 B「核能發電」--線上探究鷹架學習單
班級： 座號： 姓名： 性別：
壹. 計畫探究過程
線上探究活動流程圖，希望同學在整個探究過程中，按著步驟流程走，最後把最 好的結果報告呈現出來，除了學習如何搜尋與我們日常生活息息相關的資訊內
線上探究活動流程圖，希望同學在整個探究過程中，按著步驟流程走，最後把最 好的結果報告呈現出來，除了學習如何搜尋與我們日常生活息息相關的資訊內