國小高年級學生對於社會性科學議題之非形式推理思考表現及其線上合作論證之研究：以人工智慧相關議題為例

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：37

、訪客IP：3.145.111.115

姓名

吳喬恩(Wu, Ciao-En) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

國小高年級學生對於社會性科學議題之非形式推理思考表現及其線上合作論證之研究：以人工智慧相關議題為例

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估	★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估
★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估	★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究探討國小高年級學生對於人工智慧應用之「推薦系統的發展」非形式推理思考表現，與其針對這個議題之線上合作論證表現，本研究的研究對象為某一國小五年級學生48名，研究工具採用Wu & Tsai （2007）非形式推理問卷，蒐集研究對象在人工智慧「推薦系統的發展」議題上的非形式推理的表現，並進行分析，再以人工智慧「推薦系統的發展」議題，進行20分鐘的線上合作論證，平台資料以McAliste等（2004）的合作論證對話架構，進行合作論證行為的質性分析。主要的研究發現為：
一、高低非形式推理能力的國小高年級學生在線上論證表現並無顯著差異。
二、同質組在進行線上合作論證時，與全班和異質組更對組員所提出的論點有不同意的地方提出挑戰後進入認同，而異質組較同質組更能針對對方論點持續的進行挑戰，達到對雙方論點的了解。
三、不同性別的分組相較於同性別的分組，更能在論點的「挑戰」後整合對方論點，提出可能成立的例證。
四、「異質組」較「同質組」在線上合作論證上，不易出現非論證對話行為。
五、「不同性別組」較「同性別組」在線上合作論證上，不易出現非論證對話行為。
本研究產出的結果，對於國小高年級進行合作論證的行為模式能有所了解，對於後續執行相關研究也能有所幫助。

摘要(英)

This study explored the performance of the non-formal reasoning of the "development of recommendation system" in the application of artificial intelligence for the senior students of elementary schools. In contrast to the performance of online collaborative demonstrations on this topic, the object of this study is 48 fifth-grade students. 0ne 0f the research tool was based on Wu & Tsai (2007) Informal Reasoning Questionnaire, which collected and analyzed the performance of informal reasoning on the topic of artificial intelligence "recommendation system development", and then used artificial intelligence to "recommend system development issue". Then, a 20-minute online cooperation demonstration is conducted. The platform information uses the cooperation demonstration dialogue framework of McAliste et al. (2004) to conduct a qualitative analysis of the cooperation demonstration behavior. The main research results are as follows:
1. There is no significant difference in online demonstration performance between senior elementary school students with high and low informal reasoning abilities.
2. When the homogeneous group was conducted with online collaborative demonstrations, the whole class and the heterogeneous group challenge the arguments put forward by the group members and then enter into agreement, while the heterogeneous group is more able to continue to challenge the opponent′s arguments than the homogeneous group. To achieve an understanding of the arguments on both sides.
3. Compared with groups of the same sex, groups of different genders can integrate the arguments of the other party after the "challenges" of the arguments and provide some useful examples.
4. Compared with the "heterogeneous group" and the "homogeneous group" online collaborative argumentation, non-argumentation dialogue behavior is less likely to occur in the "heterogeneous group".
5. Compared with the "different gender group" and the "same sex group" online collaborative argumentation, non-argumentation dialogue behavior is less likely to occur in the "different gender group".
The results of this study can provide an understanding of the behavioral patterns of cooperative demonstration in the upper grades of elementary schools, and can also be helpful for the subsequent implementation of related research.

關鍵字(中)

★ 社會性科學議題
★ 非形式推理
★ 線上合作論證

關鍵字(英)

★ Social-Science-Issues
★ informal reasoning
★ online collaborative demonstration

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝辭 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 viii
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 3
第三節　研究問題 4
第四節　研究限制 5
第五節　名詞釋義 6
第二章　文獻探討 8
第一節　社會性科學議題 8
第二節　非形式推理能力 12
第三節　線上合作論證 17
第三章　研究方法 22
第一節　研究情境 22
第二節　研究流程 24
第三節　研究資料蒐集與分析 28
第四章　研究結果 35
第一節　以人工智慧應用之「推薦系統」議題，瞭解國小高年級學生的非形式推理表現為何？ 35
第二節　以人工智慧應用之「推薦系統的發展」議題，瞭解國小高年級學生的個人合作論證表現為何？ 39
第三節　以人工智慧應用之「推薦系統的發展」議題，瞭解國小高年級學生的小組合作論證表現為何？ 41
第五章　結論與建議 57
第一節　結論 57
第二節　建議 59
參考文獻 60
中文部份 60
英文部份 63
附錄 69
附錄一國內外對於社會性科學議題的研究 69
附錄二國內外對於非形式推理的研究 72
附錄三國內外對於線上合作論證的研究 74

參考文獻

中文部份
王君善（2019）。應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估。 2019。國立中央大學碩士學位論文。
何柏緯（2017）。社會性科學議題討論提升大學生批判思考意向及能力之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/mj8b6t
李開復與王詠剛（2017）。人工智慧來了。遠見天下文化出版股份有限公司。
邱瓊慧與林德圭（2010）。視覺化回饋對國小學童進行線上合作論證的效益初探。
呂青樺（2012）。社會性科學議題教學對國小六年級學童做決定能力及採取環境行動能力之影響。國立新竹教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文，新竹市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3t6c3u
吳穎沺（2006）。高中生對於核能發電爭議之非制式推理思考-兼探網路探究活動之影響。臺灣師範大學地球科學系學位論文， 1-240。
林采薇與靳知勤（2018）。國小學生在社會性科學議題教學中的認知與立場改變-以全球暖化議題為例。科學教育學刊，26（4），283-303。
林樹聲（2004）。通識素養的培育與爭議性科技議題的教學。南華通識教育研究。 2，25-37。
林樹聲與黃柏鴻（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（2004）。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融人與探討。國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎（二）， 453-465。
林樹聲（2004）。應用學習環策略進行科技引起的社會爭議議題之教學研究。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號: NSC 92-2511-S-415-003）。
林燕文與洪振方（2007a）。對話論證的探究中學童論述策略對促進科學概念理解之研究。屏東教育大學學報，26， 285-324。
林燕文與洪振方（2007b）。對話論證的探究對促進學童科學概念理解之探討。
花蓮教育大學學報，24，139-177。
邱文仁（2019）。拒當AI時代的局外人：面對機器人開始搶飯碗，你準備好了嗎? 臺北市：時報出版股份有限公司。
洪振方與林志能（2011）。網路與課室學習環境促進學童論證能力之效益。Journal of Educational Practice and Research，24（1）， 67-106。
洪煌堯、蔡佩真與林倍伊（2014）。透過知識創新教學理念與學習平臺以培養國小學生自然課合作學習與翻新想法的習慣。科學教育學刊， 22（4）， 413-439。
范家豪（2010）。國小五年級學童參與社會性科學議題的論證能力之研究-不同學業成就學生之間的比較。國立臺南大學材料科學系碩士班碩士論文，台南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/as9h89
黃翎斐、張文華與林陳涌（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.
張文馨（2018）。探討高中生在社會性科學議題決策課程中非形式推理能力、小組協作調整行為與決策方法的關係。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，台北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rh44wx
張自立與辛懷梓（2017）。合作學習策略對提升國小學生論證能力之研究，東海教育評論，12，97-110。
張芬芬與張嘉育（2015）。十二年國教 [議題融入課程] 規劃芻議。臺灣教育評論月刊， 4（3）， 26-33。
翁琪涵（2007）。國小六年級學生面對社會性科學議題做決定之研究－以「湖山水庫興建」議題為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，嘉義市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/s72k3a
教育部（2003）。《國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：自然與生活科技學習領域》。台北，台灣：教育部。
教育部（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程總綱。臺北市：教育部。
莊敏雄、洪振方與宋國城（2011）。網路探索協同教學在國小自然科的應用與成效。臺中教育大學學報: 數理科技類， 2011， 25。1: 23-45。
許瑛玿與洪榮昭（2003）。皮亞傑認知發展階段的新詮釋。科學教育月刊，（260）， 2-9。
辜千芳（2009）。國中生生活化生命科學議題線上論證演變之研究。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士班碩士論文，台中市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/e3y4bg
楊世銘（2011）。大學生對基改食品及異種生物器官移植之認知結構與非制式推理思考。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士班碩士論文，台中市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jcc8xa
靳知勤、楊惟程與段曉林（2010）。國小學童的非形式推理之研究─ 以生物複製議題之引導式論證為例. 課程與教學, 13（1）, 209-232.
靳知勤與吳靜宜（2017）。國小學生對社會性科學議題學習環境之知覺: 個人學習動機，小組合作能力與教室環境知覺。教育學報， 45（1）， 71-97。
壽大衛（2001）。資訊融入教學之班群輔導。現代教育論壇─ 電腦融入教學，國立教育資料館，台北市立師範學院。
劉湘瑤與李麗菁（2006）。國小教師對爭論性環境議題之抉擇制定。環境教育研究，4(1) ，1-32。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁與蔡今中（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）， 335-356。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠與楊錦潭（2008）。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊， 16（2）， 171-192。
蔡俊彥、黃台珠與楊錦潭（2008）。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊， 16（2）， 171-192。
賴志忠（2008）。國中學生之非形式推理能力探討-以「風力發電」及「生態步道」決策為例。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士班碩士論文，台中市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/pgt3d3
羅鎮忠（2009）。大一學生在進行社會性科學議題論證之研究：以「臍帶血」與「基因治療」為例。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士班碩士論文，台中市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/n9y577
蘇宇祥（2017）。國小高年級數學非形式推理之研究─以高雄市一小學為例。國立屏東大學應用數學系碩士班碩士論文，屏東縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jn93p6

英文部份
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socio scientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41-61). Springer, Dordrecht.
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.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.443-460). New York: Cambridge 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(3), 352-377.
Boyle, P., & Trevitt, C. (1997). Enhancing the quality of student learning through the use of subject learning plans. Higher education research & development, 16(3), 293-308.
Braund, M., Lubben, F., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Hodges, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of scientific and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: Lessons from South Africa. School Science Review.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
Choi, J. I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational technology research and development, 43(2), 53-69.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
Driver, R., Leach, J., & Millar, R. (1996). Young people′s images of science. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
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.
Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners′ science content understandings with the use of on‐line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
Hong, J. L., & Chang, N. K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students′ decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in science education, 34(1), 97-111.
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(6), 978-995.
Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science education, 84(6), 757-792.
Jime´ nez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, R. L., & Erduran, S. (2005, April). Argumentation quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in elementary school. In the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, USA.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Roseth, C. (2010). COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS Interrelationship of Relationships and Achievement. Middle grades research journal, 5(1).
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
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.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ′To trust or not to trust,…′-pupils′ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
Kolstö, S. D. (2001). Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial Socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socio‐scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., ... & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students′ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students′ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
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.
Law, N. (2017). Assessing Learning Outcome in CSCL Settings. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 373-377). Routledge.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.
Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International journal of science education, 25(6), 727-758.
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students′ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and instruction, 16(5), 492-509.
Mcalister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194-204.
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(2), 139-178.
Merryfield, M. M. (1991). Science‐technology‐society and global perspectives. Theory into Practice, 30(4), 288-293.
Mistler‐Jackson, M., & Butler Songer, N. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported co‐operative learning. Journal of the American Society for Information science, 48(6), 484-495.
Onosko, J. J. (1995). Exploring Issues with Students Despite the Barriers. Social Education, 60(1), 22-27.
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.
Oulton, C. R., Day, V., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2001). Unlocking controversial issues: A report to the Countryside Foundation for Education.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of science education, 26(4), 411-423.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students′ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
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.
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.
Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem‐based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215-237.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2018). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. In Educational Psychologist (pp. 235-244). Routledge.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision‐making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
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., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science education, 89(1), 71-93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
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.
Soller, A., Goodman, B., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998, August). Promoting effective peer interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 186-195). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science‐based social issues presented on television: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431-444.
Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2002). Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a Cscl Community (Cscl 2002 Proceedings). Psychology Press.
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.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio‐scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400.
Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students′ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244.
Yen, M.-H., & Wu, Y.-T. (2018, Jun). The effects of collaborative argumentation learning activity on university students’ online reading and reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue: Evidence from eye tracking analysis. Paper presented at the 49th annual Australian Science Education Research Association (ASERA) Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
Yusoff, M., Yu, S., & Chang, C. Y. (2013). The use of knowledge building tool for science learning in an elementary school. In Creating Holistic Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences (pp. 75-91). Brill Sense.
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(3), 343-367.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students′ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Zhang, M., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196.

指導教授

吳穎沺(Wu, Ying-Tien)

審核日期

2021-7-19

推文