資訊科技的蓬勃發展造就人類文明的進步，處在這快速變遷的時代，人們所面臨到的問題也相對更複雜，懂得如何與他人進行合作解決問題儼然成為21世紀的重點培養技能。而在科學教育上，電腦模擬可以透過合作調整變數來觀察參數之間的變化，培養學生探究及建構領域知識。本研究應用電腦模擬協助學生進行合作科學問題解決活動，探討學習者在不同模擬合作模式下，關於其合作科學問題解決的能力與行為模式，使用PISA2015合作問題解決評量架構來分析兩種模式下的合作問題解決技能表現，分析對話串內容到運用行為序列分析討論不同的行為模式之間的差異。研究結果發現兩種模式下的學生在對話串在PISA合作問題解決兩向度的分類上有明顯的不同，各自討論的重點也不同。從行為序列分析趨勢圖中可以知道兩種模擬合作模式有各自不同的行為模式，合作模擬組主要聚集在操作模擬上；個人模擬組主要在報告反思上。而在前後測學習成效比較上，個人模擬組的學習者與合作模擬組的學習者有顯著差異，個人模擬組的學生在應用題表現上表現比合作模擬組的學生來的好。最後，本研究依據結果與討論提出教學實務、系統設計及未來研究之建議。;The improvements of information technology advance the civilization and progress of the humanity. The problem we face is more complicated nowadays because of Living in a fast-changing environment. Knowing how to solve problems with peers collaboratively becomes the important skill in 21st century obviously. On the other hands, in the field of science education, learners can adjust variable on computer simulation to observe changes between different variables and parameters. It can foster student inquiry skill and construct their domain knowledge. The purpose of this study is to assist learner by computer simulation in collaborative science problem solving activity, to analyze learners’ collaborative problem solving skills and behavior pattern in different computer simulation modes. The study use PISA 2015 “Collaborative Problem Solving” Framework to analyze the performance of learners. The result shows that communication threads between collaborative simulation and individual simulation are significantly different with the classifications of PISA collaborative problem solving framework, and so as the key point the learners discuss. From the Lag Sequential analysis, we induct that both groups have their own behavior patterns. The collaborative computer simulation group mainly focuses on how to work with the simulation, while the individual group focuses on reflect the whole process and apply the variable they get from the simulation to the problem situation. We also examined learners’ learning achievements between two groups. The individual computer simulation group performed significantly better than the collaborative group especially in application questions. In the conclusion of this study, we point out some suggestions on teaching practices, improvement on the system design, and future research.
