第五章 結論與討論
第三節 研究與教學建議
（一）未來研究方面，本研究建議後續能繼而探討：1.學生在結構式、引 導式探究教學法中的小組協作情況，藉以闡述這兩種教學法之間有哪些學生行 動、互動的特徵。2. Edelson、Tarnoff、Schwille、Bruozas 與 Switzer（2006）
提到：想提升學生的決策技能，除了要教科學的內容知識和探究實務的技能，
還要讓學生了解周全的決策是如何產生的。本研究僅分析學生自評決策歷程的 表現，所以學生在決策歷程中更完整的後設認知表現，也是值得深入分析的。
3.學生的價值觀，如何影響他做決策，因為 Aikenhead（2006）指出價值觀也許 是主宰決策的原因，但每位學生擁有的價值觀，如何影響他進行決策，仍是一 個大哉問。
（二）教學現場方面，本研究建議教師若想培養青少年學生的決策能力，
1.可依照學生本身的先備決策能力、先備自評決策的情況，搭配決策框架再選 用較為合適的探究教學法。例如在上一小節的「不同學生決策能力之較有成效 的探究教學形式」。因為，理解與分析資料對學生而言都是較為陌生的練習，甚 至對有些學生而言是一種挑戰。而且，Sadler（2011）指出在社會性科學議題 的情境中，需要學生接受議題中涵蓋著一定比例的不確定資訊。這些資訊不如 課本之中的資料那般果斷，所以研究者認為：學生可能會更需要決策框架來幫 助他們在決策歷程中來回思考。還有，2.教師也應適時地說明或引導學生進行 決策活動。例如明確地告知學生：決策的形成並不是以線性思考在進行的，做 決策必須瞻前顧後。或是提供來自於同齡學生的實際說法，像是「有很多判準 要去考量，也許我無法全盤考慮到或是有些判準沒想到，每個環節緊緊相扣，
當下所做的每個決定，都會影響到最後的選擇（A-102-08）」、「有太多東西要去 考慮，而這之中一定會有互相矛盾的點，如何在這裡面取得平衡並得出結論，
是一大難題（A-102-08）」，藉由上述他人經驗的分享，其實也是一種輔助學習 的鷹架。
參考文獻
中文參考文獻
王保進（民 104）。中文視窗版 SPSS 與行為科學研究。臺北: 心理出版社股份有限 公司。
吳心楷、宋曜廷、簡馨瑩（民 99）。錄影分析在教育研究應用。科學教育研究期刊，
55（4），1-37。
吳佳蓉（民 103）。探討在網路科學探究平台社會性科學議題決策活動中國中生決策 能力的表現。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林清山（民 103）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：臺灣東華書局股份有限公司。
林樹聲（民 97）。科學教室中的社會性科學議題之教學。教師之友，49（4），2-6。
教育部（民 103）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市。
陳俊榮（民 102）。國小教師將社會性科學議題融入科學教學之行動研究。國立臺中 教育大學科學應用與推廣學系暑期在職進修專班碩士論文，未出版，臺中 市。
英文參考文獻
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. doi: 10.1080/09500690902991805
Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS in science teaching? In J. Solomon & G.
Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730690403
Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision‐making theories as tools for interpreting student behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 189-203. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260302
Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision‐making theories as tools for interpreting student
behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 189-203. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260302
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching? What research says about inquiry.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1023/A:10151711249 82
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5 Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science
Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479-506. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0
Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Progression in complexity:
contextualizing sustainable marine resources management in a 10th grade classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 5-23. doi:
10.1007/s11165-011-9254-1
Burek, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2015). Seeing the forest for the trees! Conservation and activism through socioscientific issues. In M. P. Mueller, & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), EcoJustice, citizen science and youth activism (Vol. 1, pp. 425-441). Springer International Publishing.
Bybee, R.W., Harms, N., Ward, B., & Yager, R. (1980). Science, society, and science education. Science Education, 64(3), 377-395. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730640312 Cannard, K. (2005). Embracing controversy in the classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 14.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (Vol. 2, pp. 515-544). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121-127.
Dewey, J. (1916). Method in science teaching. General Science Quarterly, 1(1), 3-9.
doi:10.1002/sce.3730010101
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science.
London, United Kingdom: Open Unerversity Press.
Edelson, C. D., Tarnoff, A., Schwille, K., Bruozas, M., & Switzer, A. (2006). Learning to
make systematic decisions. The Science Teacher, 73(4), 40–45.
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20358
Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students' learning outcomes. Education Research International, 1-12.
Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
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. doi: 10.1080/09500690701744595
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169. doi:
10.1080/09500690210134848
Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student Decision-Making about a Globally Familiar Socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855-1874. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1054000
Grünig, R., & Kühn. R. (2005). Decision-making procedures. In R. Grünig, & R. Kühn (Eds.), Successful decision-making (pp.39-60). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicization of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71-98. doi:
10.1080/09659759400201 04
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670. doi:
10.1080/0950069 0305021
Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’
debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151. doi: 10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded
rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h00 57123
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. doi:
10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
Klaczynski, P. A., & Cottrell, J. M. (2004). A dual-process approach to cognitive development: The case of children’s understanding of sunk cost decisions, Thinking & Reasoning, 10(2), 147-174. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000042
Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664. doi: 10.1080/095006900289714 Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science
dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611) 80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2010). Students' reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: Bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156-165. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross ‐ context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. doi: 10.1002/sce.21021
Levy Nahum, T., Ben‐Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES‐oriented science education promote 10th‐grade students’ decision-making capability?. International Journal of Science Education,32(10), 1315-1336. doi:
10.
1080/09500690903042533
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. doi: 10.1002/sce.20422
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2010). Guest editorial: Reexamining inquiry pedagogy in the science
classroom. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 1-4.
McComas, M., & Wood, L. (2014). Inquiry Instruction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education (pp. 52-54). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision‐making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630.
doi:10.1002/sce.
21016
Payne, J. W., Bettmann, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230. doi: 10.1080/0950069970191007
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues‐based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181. doi:
10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
Pokras, S. (1994). Team problem solving. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
doi: 10.1080/0950069970190203
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi:
10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/03 057260802681839
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4
Sadler, T. D., & Donelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. doi: 10.1080/09500690600708717
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(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. doi:
10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’
socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues - development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291-2313. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.920550
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Jersey, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Siribunnam, S., Nuangchalerm, P., & Jansawang, N. (2014). Socio-scientific decision making in the science classroom. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5(4), 1777-1782.
Solomon, S. (Ed.). (2007). Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67. doi:
10.1080/09500791003628187
Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: A university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311-2333. doi:
10.1080/09500690903501736
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univesity Press.
Wen-Xin Zhang, Ying-Shao Hsu, Hsin-Kai Wu, Che-Yu Kuo, Tsung-hau Jen (2015, August). The effect of metacognition on student inquiry abilities in a simulation-based assessment system. Paper session presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Finland.
Wheeler, L., & Bell, R. (2012). Open-ended inquiry: Practical ways of implementing inquiry in the chemistry classroom. The Science Teacher, 79(6), 32.
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(9), 1163-1187. doi: 10.1080/09500690601083375
Xun, G. E., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer
interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. doi:
10.1007/BF02504836
Yager, R.E. (1984). Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education, 68(1), 35-37. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730680107
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. In N. G. Lederman,
& S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (Vol. 2, pp.697-726). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. doi:
10.1007/BF03173684
Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler, (Ed.), Socio- scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. (pp. 277-305).
New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_16
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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(1), 74-101. doi: 10.1002/tea.20281
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T. J., ... Hsu, J. Y. (2015). Improving children’s competence as decision makers contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 1-30. doi: 10.3102/0002831215618663
附錄
附錄一 決策能力試題
火力發電 vs. 風力發電
班級：_____________ 座號：_____________
任務說明
靠海的賽恩斯小鎮近 5 年來產業型態的轉變，逐漸增加的工廠造成用電量相當吃緊的困境。為了能供應民生和工業用電，該地的居 民大多同意加蓋發電廠，並提出火力發電和風力發電兩個選項。所以，接下來面對火力發電和風力發電這兩個選項，賽恩斯小鎮該 如何決定？假設你是當地的政府團隊成員，請依照現有資料，比較火力發電和風力發電，選出你認為最適合小鎮的發電型態。
資料 1：賽恩斯小鎮的介紹這 15 年來，當地每個月的平均風速（單位：公尺／秒）。 近 5 年來，當地居民每個月的平均用電量（單位：104度）。
資料 2：火力發電、風力發電的介紹火力發電 風力發電
（1） 發電原理：燃燒化石燃料產生高溫使水變成水蒸氣，
再利用水蒸氣推動渦輪機而使發電機運作。
（2） 設廠條件：因為發電過程需要水，故沿海地帶取水較方便。
（3） 建置成本：設廠成本 170000 萬元，土地成本 5000 萬。
（4） 發電成本：天然氣 6.3（元／度）。
（5） 化學能（天然氣）轉換成電能的比例：90％（無法蓄電）
（6） 使用壽命：40 年。
（7） 其它說明：只要燃料持續提供，即可穩定發電，所以 可以因應賽恩斯小鎮用電量吃緊的現況。
雖然天然氣是對空氣汙染程度最低的化石 燃料，然而火力發電對於環境的影響，
仍有其爭議性。
（1） 發電原理：利用風力帶動風車葉片旋轉，再透過增速器 讓旋轉的速度提升進而轉動發電機。
（2） 設廠條件：風速達 3 公尺／秒以上，並且至少持續 1 小時。
（3） 建置成本：設廠成本 9000 萬元，土地成本 105000 萬。
（4） 發電成本：風 0（元／度），增速器運轉的費用 2.8（元／
度）。
（5） 風能轉換成電能的比例：0～20％（無法蓄電）
（6） 使用壽命：20 年。
（7） 其它說明：風為再生能源，只要風速的配合和增速器的 帶動，即為低成本、無汙染的發電方式。
雖然風力發電不會造成空氣汙染，但是沒有 風就沒有電。因此建置風力發電機仍需考量 賽恩斯小鎮當地的風速條件。