本研究旨在透過讓學童閱讀具有不確定性的科學問題，探討國小學童的個人認識觀、科學探究看法、推論能力及對於科學文本的理解，並找出彼此間的關係。
本研究主要是以質的研究方法為主，結合量的研究法，透過半結構性晤談法以及開放性紙筆測驗，問卷調查法進行資料蒐集。本研究樣本是以臺北市某國小三、六年級共120人進行研究，其中三年級佔60人，男生有30人，女生有30人；六年級佔60人，男生有30人，女生有30人。研究工具有「科學探究看法問卷」 、「科學文本理解問卷」、「閱讀情意問卷」以及「爭議性科學問題的晤談工具」含恐龍晤談文章 與文章晤談稿共四種。所使用的研究方法包括描述性統計、獨立t檢定、單因數變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關、薛費事後比較法、卡方檢定以及單因數共變數分析等。
本研究重要發現如下：
1.國小學童對「知識的本質」的看法，大部分持多元論的觀點且趨近於知識為確定的立場；而對於「知的過程」的看法，則大部分持多元論的觀點。
2.學童對「科學方法」與「科學活動」的探究看法，大部分停留在前實證論階段；而學童對「科學證據」的科學探究看法，則大多能表達出實證論觀點。
3.三年級學童在「閱讀價值」、「閱讀挑戰」、「閱讀傾向」、「他人期望」及「個人閱讀興趣」的情意元素顯著高於六年級學童，且科學主題興趣與「閱讀價值」、「閱讀挑戰」、「閱讀傾向」、「他人期望」及「個人閱讀興趣」等五個情意元素，彼此間有顯著正相關。
4.學童對於透過問卷所測得的科學文本內容理解表現有高達約8成的正確率；且學童在閱讀完科學文章後，三年級學童平均能舉出文章中的一個證據或推論做為導致恐龍滅絕的理由，而六年級學童則可以舉出文章中的二個證據或推論做為導致恐龍滅絕的理由。
5.一般而言學童的論證能力(argumentation)並不強，大部分學童在「反論」與「反駁反論」的表現上，無法提出科學性理由做為論點，只能提出一般性的理由做為論點；只有在「論證」的表現(making arguments)上，六年級有超過一半的學童可以提出一個科學性的理由做為論點。
6.學童只在「他人期望」的閱讀情意部份，和透過晤談的方式所測出的科學文本理解有顯著正相關；其餘閱讀情意項目與科學主題興趣，皆和透過晤談或問卷所測出的科學文本理解間皆沒有顯著相關存在。
7.三、六年級學童在「知識的本質」與「知的過程」的認識觀、「科學方法」的探究看法、反思推論能力、與爭議性科學文本理解表現沒有顯著差異。
8.六年級學童在「科學活動」、「科學證據」的探究看法與「論證」、「反論」、「反駁反論」的思考推論表現，以及「隕石撞擊」、「火山爆發」兩篇文章的文本理解晤談表現與「火山爆發」的文本理解問卷表現，皆顯著高於三年級。
9.男、女生在「知的過程」之認識觀與「科學活動」、「科學方法」和「科學證據」的探究看法，及「論證」、「反論」的思考推論表現、「反思推論能力」、科學文本理解問卷表現以及「火山爆發」與「蟲蟲搞的鬼」的科學文本理解晤談表現，沒有顯著差異。
10.男生對「知識的本質」的認識觀比女生成熟，而在「隕石撞擊」的科學文本理解晤談表現與「反駁反論」的推論表現上，男生也顯著高於女生。
11.「知識本質」、「知的過程」之個人認識觀類型與科學文本理解晤談、問卷表現以及思考推論表現間，沒顯著差異存在。
12.「知識本質」之個人認識觀和「科學活動」與「科學方法」的探究看法有顯著差異，但和「科學證據」的探究看法沒顯著差異；「知的過程」之個人認識觀和「科學活動」、「科學方法」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒顯著差異。
13.科學文本理解晤談表現與「科學活動」的科學探究看法、「論證」、「反論」及「反駁反論」的推論表現，有顯著正相關或差異存在；而科學文本理解問卷表現只和「論證」、「反論」的推論表現、「科學活動」的探究看法，有顯著正相關或差異存在，和「反駁反論」、「科學方法」、「科學證據」的探究看法，沒顯著相關或差異存在。
14.「論證」推論表現和「科學方法」的探究看法，有顯著差異，和「科學活動」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒有顯著差異；「反論」推論表現和「科學活動」的探究看法，有顯著差異，而和「科學方法」與「科學證據」的探究看法，沒有顯著差異；「反駁反論」推論表現則和「科學活動」、「科學方法」以及「科學證據」的探究看法間，沒有顯著差異存在。
15.科學探究看法與科學文本理解會反應於推論表現上。

The purpose of this study was to let student read scientific questions that contain uncertainty in order to explore the personal epistemological beliefs, views on scientific investigation, and argument ability of elementary school students, to explore how these affect understanding of science texts and to discover the relationships among them.
This study employed qualitative research methods in collaboration with quantitative methods.Semi-structured interview, open pen-and-paper test, and interviews were conducted for data collection. The research sample consisted of 120 third and sixth graders in an elementary school in Taipei City.Among them, 60 were in the third grade, with 30 boys and 30 girls. 60 were in the sixth grade, with 30 boys and 30 girls. The research tools included the “views on scientific investigation questionnaire,” “science text reading comprehension questionnaire,” “reading affection questionnaire,” and “interview tool for controversial scientific questions,” which includes the dinosaur interview article and four types of article interview drafts. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, Scheffe post-hoc comparison method, chi-test, and one-way ANCOVA.
The important findings of this study were as follows:
1.The views of elementary school students regarding “nature of knowledge” were generally of the multiplist perspective, approaching the position of knowledge as certainty; their views on “process of knowing” were generally of the multiplist perspective.
2.Student exploratory views on “scientific method” and “scientific activity” were generally in the pre-positivist view stage; student views toward the scientific exploration of “scientific evidence” could generally be expressed as positivist views.
3.Third-grade students had significantly higher emotional elements than sixth-grade students in “reading value,” “reading challenge,” “reading inclination,” expectations of others,” and “personal reading interest.”Furthermore, there were significant positive correlations between scientific topical interest and the five emotional elements of “reading value,” “reading challenge,” “reading inclination,” “expectations of others,” and “personal reading interest.”
4.Student performances on the science text comprehension questionnaire showed as high as about 80% accuracy rate; after students read the science articles, third-graders generally were able to cite one piece of evidence from the text or one deduction about the reason for dinosaur extinction, while sixth-graders could cite two pieces or evidence or deductions about the reason for dinosaur extinction.
5.Generally, student argumentation ability was not strong. In student performance in “counterargument” and “rebuttal,” most students could not propose scientific reasons as their viewpoints, and could only propose general reasons as their viewpoints. Only in the performance of “making arguments,” more than half of the sixth-graders were able to propose a scientific reason as the viewpoint.
6.A significant positive correlation was only found between the student reading emotional factor of “expectations of others” and science text comprehension found through the interview method; in other reading emotional factors and interest in scientific topics, there were no significant correlations with the science text comprehension found through the interview method or quantitative methods.
7.The epistemology of third- and sixth-graders in “nature of knowledge” and “process of knowing” and exploratory views on “scientific method,” there were no significant differences between reflective reasoning ability and controversial science text comprehension performance.
8.Sixth grade students were significantly better than third grade students in terms of views on scientific investigation in scientific activity, scientific evidence, and reasoning performance of argumentation, counterargument, and rebuttal, interviews regarding ability of understanding science texts for the two articles of Meteors Hit and Volcanic Eruptions, as well as questionnaires on understanding science texts of the article Volcanic Eruptions.
9.In “the process of knowing,” epistemological beliefs and scientific activity,views on scientific investigation of scientific method and scientific evidence, and reasoning performance in argumentation, counterargument, and rebuttal ability,interviews regarding ability of understanding science texts for the two articles of Volcanic Eruptions and It Was the Bugs, and reading comprehension questionnaire scores on the three articles Meteors Hit,Volcanic Eruptions, and It Was the Bugs, there were no significant differences between boys and girls.
10.Boys have more mature development than girls in epistemological beliefs of “the nature of knowledge,” and in the interviews inunderstanding science texts of Meteors Hit and counterargument and rebuttal, boys significantly scored higher than girls.
11.There were no significant differences in the personal epistemological view types of “nature of knowledge” and “process of knowing” and science text comprehension interview, questionnaire performance, and reflexive reasoning performance.
12.Personal epistemological beliefs and scientific activity of “nature of knowledge” show significant differences with the types of views on scientific investigation on scientific method, but do not show significant differences with the views on scientific investigation on scientific evidence;personal epistemological beliefs and scientific activity of “the process of knowing,”views on scientific investigation of scientific method and scientific evidence. There were no significant correlations between the scientific theme of dinosaurs and the reading affect questionnaire and interview and the questionnaire on understanding science texts.
13.There were positive correlations or differences between science text comprehension interview performance and the scientific exploratory view of “scientific activity,” reasoning performances of “argumentation,” “counterargument,” and “rebuttal”; there were only positive correlations or differences between science text comprehension questionnaire performance and the reasoning performances of “argumentation” and “counterargument” and the exploratory view of “scientific activity”; there was no significant correlation or difference with “rebuttal,” the exploratory view of “scientific evidence,” and “scientific method.”
14.There were significant differences between the reasoning performance of “argumentation” and the exploratory view of “scientific method,” no significant difference with “scientific activity” and “scientific evidence”; there were significant differences between the reasoning performance of “counterargument” and the exploratory view of “scientific activity,” but no significant differences with the exploratory views of “scientific method” and “scientific evidence”;the reasoning performance of “rebuttal” showed no significant difference with the exploratory views of “scientific activity,” “scientific method,” and “scientific evidence.”
15.Science exploratory views and science text comprehension were reflected in reasoning performance.

中文部份
丁信中（2003）。青年學生於理論競爭論證過程中對其支持理論侷限的覺察。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
王仁宏（2003）。後設認知策略教學對國小補校成人學生閱讀理解成效影響之研究。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
古秀梅（2005）。國小學童閱讀動機、閱讀態度、閱讀行為與國語科學業成就之相關研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林秀娟（2001）。閱讀討論教學對國小學童閱讀動機、閱讀態度和閱讀行為之影響。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
周芷誼（2006）。閱讀環境與學童閱讀態度相關之研究-以彰化縣一所國小五年級為例。國立台中教育大學社會科教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
洪文東（1997）。科學文章的閱讀理解。屏師科學教育，5，14-25。
洪振方（1994）：從孔恩異例的認知與論證探討科學知識的重建。國立台灣師範大科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
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。臺北市：教育部。
張春興（2001）。現代心理學。臺北：東華。
陳秋芬（1997）。科學性文章中的時間序列對國小五年級學生閱讀理解的影響。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳美鳳（2003）。閱讀科學普及讀物教學對閱讀理解能力與自然科學習成就之影響。國立臺北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
談麗梅（2002）。兒童閱讀運動中教師推行信念、學校策略與兒童閱讀態度之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
錡寶香（1999）。國小學童閱讀理解能力之分析研究。國教學報，11，100-133。
盧秀琴（2004）。中小學「細胞相關課程閱讀理解能力測驗」的發展與效化。國立臺北師範學院學報，17（2）,83-114。
錢翹英（2004）。探究創新教學法對國小五年級學童概念學習與科學閱讀態度的影響。國立臺北師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
謝添裕（2002）。國小學童對不同型式以及不同圖文配置知科學文章其閱讀理解與閱讀觀點之研究。台中師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
羅彥文（1995）。國中學生國文閱讀學習之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版。
蘇雅雲（2007）。大一學生生物探究學習之科學本質觀與科學探究觀之研究。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，未出版。
英文部分
Alexander,P.A.,Jetton,T.L.,& Kulikowich,J.M.(1996). Interrelationships of knowledge,interest,and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575.
American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, D. C.: Author.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004).Inquiry in science education:International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1987). The affective dimension of learning:Faculty-student relationships that enhance intellectual development.College Student Journal,21,46-58.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns instudents’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemologicalreflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31–42.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Binkley,R.W.(1995). Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic,17(2),127-143.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist,41, 1123-1130.
Carey, S. (2009). The Origin of Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation inclassrooms, Science education, 84, 287–312.
Dweck,C.S.,& Leggett,E.L.(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review,95(2),256-273.
Duschl,R.,& Osborne,J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, Studies in Science Education,38, 39–72.
Edmonson, K.M. & Novak, J.D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views,learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,547–559.
Foy, P. & Olson, J.F. (Eds.). (2009). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.（1975）. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison–Wesley.
Gagn’e, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R.（1993）.The cognitive psychology of school learning（2nd ed.）.New York, Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gottfried, A.E.(1990).Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield,A.(1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific studies of reading, 3(3), 199-205.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs aboutknowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research,67,88–140.
Hyde, A. A., & Bizar, M.（1989）. Thinking in contest. New York：Longman.
Kitchener,K.S.(1983).Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition. Human Development,26,222-232.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding andpromoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Klaczynski,P. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: a two-process approach to adolescent cognition, Child Development,71, 1347–1366.
Kuhn,D. (1991).The skills of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kuhn,D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking, Science Education,77, 319–337.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking, Educational Researcher,28, 16–26.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of Natureof Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment ofLearners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(6), 497-521.
Lederman, J.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2005). Developing and assessing elementary teachers’and students’ understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry . A paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, Dallas, TX.
Liu, S. Y. & Tsai, C. –C. (2008). Differences in scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1055-1073.
Mason,L.,& Boscolo,P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change.Contemporary Educational Psychology ,29,103-128.
Mason,L.,& Scirica,F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding.Learning and Instruction ,16, 492-509.
Means,M.L.,&Voss,J.F. (1996). Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels, Cognition and Instruction,14, 139–178.
Meece ,J.L., & Miller,S.D.(1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading and writing : Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Science Studies of Reading, 3, 207-229.
Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization ofuncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and instruction,22(2), 219-290.
Mullen, J. (1995). The relationship of self-concept and classroom behavior to students’ attitudes toward reading. Dissertation Abstracts International,55(10), 3148.
National Research Council(1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC:National Academic Press.
National Research Council(2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington,DC:National Academic Press.
Newton, P. & Driver, R.& Osborne,J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science,International Journal of Science Education,21, 553–576.
Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: Philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education,11, 530-540.
OECD(2007).PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World,Vol.1 :Analysis,Retrieved December 5,2009.from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme.New York: Holt ,Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1981).Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning.In A. Chickering (Ed.),The modern American college (pp.76-116).San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Piaget. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 248-258.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’practical epistemologies and their influenceon learning through inquiry. Science education, 89, 634-656.
Sandoval, W.A.,& Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students’ used of evidence in written scientific explanations, Cognition and Instruction,23, 23–55.
Schoenfeld, A.(1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief system, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science,7(4),329-363.
Schommer, M.(1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 498–504.
Schraw,G., & Bruning,R.(1996). Readers’ implicit models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 290-306.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientationsof Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82, 473-489.
Tsai, C. C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’view changes toward the nature of science by courses of science education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22, 363-375.
Tsai, C. C., & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Von Eemeren, F.H.(1995). A word of difference : The rich state of argumentation theory.Informal Logic,17(2),144-158.
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-basedlaboratories in nonmajor biology: An interpretive study of the relationships amonginquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptualgrowth. Journal ofResearch inScience Teaching,40(10), 996-1024.
Weinstock, M.,& Neuman Y.,& Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments, Contemporary Educational Psychology,29, 77–94.
Wigfield,A.(1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist,32, 59-68.
Yang, F. Y. & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoningmodes about nuclear energy use, International Journal of Science Education,25, 221–244.
Yang, F. Y. (2004). Exploring high school students’ use of theory andevidence in an everydaycontext: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making, InternationalJournal of Science Education,26,1345-1364.
Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning asocio-scientific issue and personal epistemology, Educational Studies,31, 65-84.
Yang, F. Y., Tsai, M. J. & Hsu, Y. S. (2008a). A cross-analysis for high-school students’personal epistemological beliefs and understandings about scientific inquiry. Paper presented in the NARST 2008 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, ML. USA.
Yang, F. Y., Tsai, M. J. & Hsu, Y. S. (2008b).Teacher views about the constructivist instruction and personal epistemology-A national study in Taiwan.Educational Studies,34, 527-542.
Yang, F. Y.,& Tsai, C. -C.(2010a). Reasoning about science-related uncertain issues and epistemological perspective among children. Instructional Science, 38 (4), 325-354 .
Yang F. Y. & Tsai, C., -C. (2010b). An epistemic framework for scientific reasoning in informal contexts. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht, Personal Epistemology in the Classroom (pp. 124-162). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, C.(2000). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review,20,99-149.