自然現象發生的原因可透過科學解釋架構加以解釋，主要包括參與此現象的實體、其特性與所造成的活動等三要素。本研究想探討大學生閱讀靜電學科學文本並進行自我解釋時，透過科學解釋架構輔助，對靜電學科學文本的學習情況之影響以及受試者使用科學解釋架構中實體、特性與活動的情況。本研究的自變項為「科學解釋架構」，實驗分成兩個組別，兩組皆閱讀相同的科學文本「生活中的靜電現象」，並且透過自我解釋任務來進行學習活動，差異在於其中一組受試者的文本中有標示科學解釋架構中的實體、特性與活動（簡稱科學解釋組），另一組受試者的文本中則未標示（簡稱對照組）。受試者透過科學解釋架構的輔助，將會影響到受試者對科學解釋架構掌握程度，進而影響其自我解釋任務表現。最後，也會對科學解釋能力產生影響。因此本研究的應變項為「科學解釋架構掌握程度」、「自我解釋任務表現」以及「科學解釋能力」。本研究透過網路招募40位非理工科系的大學生做為研究對象，在實驗前先依照學測自然科成績，平均分配到科學解釋組與對照組，以利進行後續的實驗。
研究結果顯示，大部分後測解釋表現，科學解釋組與對照組未達顯著，僅在應用題有達顯著差異，並且是對照組表現比科學解釋組好。實體、特性與活動的完整辨識比例上，可以看出辨識實體、特性與活動間的難易程度，實體最容易被辨識，活動次之，最後是特性，對學生而言特性是最難辨識的。
自我解釋任務表現中，科學解釋組的表現較不理想，較難將文本內容的因果關係連結，由後續訪談得知，部分科學解釋組的學生對科學解釋架構感到疑惑，學生在進行任務的過程中，發現自己主觀判斷與文本內容標示不符時，會造成學生缺乏信心，顯示科學解釋架構是有一定的門檻，學生沒辦法短時間內理解或接受此架構的拆解。對於科學解釋架構的掌握程度，受試者間也存有一定的落差，將近一半的受試者能夠掌握三要素以及要素間的連結，但也有約四分之一的受試者面臨到障礙。
本研究建議在進行科學解釋架構的教學時，透過一系列的課程來發展，經過長時間的教學與適應，使學生熟悉科學解釋架構並產生認同，期望學生能自主使用科學解釋架構並應用到日常生活中。

The underlying mechanism of natural phenomena could be explained through the scientific explanation framework, which mainly includes three components, namely, the entities involved in the phenomenon, the properties of these entities and the resulting activities. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of self-explanation with the aid of scientific explanation framework on college students’ comprehension of texts about electrostatics. The independent variable of this study was "the aid of scientific explanation framework", with two conditions. Both groups of the students read the same scientific text "Electrostatics in Daily Life" and conducted learning activities through self-explanation tasks. The difference between the two groups was that one group (referred to as the scientific explanation group) read the scientific text with marks for entities, properties and activities, while the other group (referred to as the control group) read the unmarked version. With the assistance of the scientific explanation framework, degrees of students’ mastery of the scientific explanation framework would be affected, thereby affected the performance of the self-explaining task. It would also have an impact on the ability of scientific explanation. Therefore, the dependent variables of this study were "degrees of mastery of scientific explanation framework", "performance on self-explanation tasks", and "scientific explanation ability". In this study, 40 non-science or engineering college students were recruited through the Internet as the research participants. They were evenly assigned to the scientific explanation group and the control group according to their scores on the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT).
The results of this study showed that, for the post-test explanation performance, significant differences between the scientific explanation group and the control group were only observed in application questions, in which the control group outperformed the scientific explanation group. From the proportion of entities, properties and activities mentioned in the scientific explanation tests, it was found that entities were the easiest component, followed by activities, and properties were the most difficult component. During the self-explaining task, the performance of the scientific explanation group was less than satisfactory, and it was difficult for them to connect the causal relationship within the text content. From the follow-up interviews, we learned that some students in the scientific explanation group were confused about the scientific explanation framework. Students’ confidence reduced when they found their subjective judgments did not match the marks of the scientific explanation components in the text. This results suggested that the scientific explanation framework is difficult to some extent. Students could not fully understand or accept this framework in a short time. Regarding the degrees of mastery of the scientific explanation framework, although nearly half of the students were able to master the three components and the connections among them, about a quarter of the subjects experienced difficulties.
This study suggested that the instruction of the scientific explanation framework should be developed through a series of courses. After a long period of learning and adaptation, students would be familiar with the scientific explanation framework. It is expected that students can use the scientific explanation framework independently and spontaneously apply it in their daily life.

一、中文部分
方健諺（2017）。探討使用不同論證任務對大學生學習摩擦力概念之成效，臺灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
邱美虹（1994）。從“自我解釋”所產生的推論探究高中生化學平衡的學習。師大學報，39，489-524。
邱美虹（2008）。模型與建模能力之理論架構。科學教育月刊。
郭重吉（1989）。從認知的觀點探討科學教育的理論與實際。國科會科教處。
翁雪芳（2013）。以科學新聞發展國中生的科學解釋實務，臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳姿津（2006）。 『科學類比推理』網路互動學習研究－促進國中生電學概念之建構與推理能力 。交通大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
張哲凱（2016）。探討自我解釋提示鷹架褪除程度對概念學習與心智模式表現之影響-以光學成像單元為例，臺灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
謝州恩（2003）。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究，臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
薛夙芬（2015）。自我解釋策略教學對國小學童科學文本理解歷程與成效之影響。中正大學教育學研究所學位論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
二、英文部分
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science, 13(2), 145-182.
Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69-105.
Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science, 18(3), 439-477.
Chi, M. T. (2018). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 251-282). Routledge.
Chiu, J. L., & Chi, M. T. (2014). Supporting self-explanation in the classroom. Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum, 91-103.
De Andrade, V., Freire, S., & Baptista, M. (2019). Constructing scientific explanations: a system of analysis for students’ explanations. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 787-807.
Gershman, S., Hausmann, R., Nokes, T., & VanLehn, K. (2009). The design of self-explanation prompts: The fit hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31(1), 2626-2631.
Gilbert,J. K., and Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, Misconceptions and Alternative Conceptions: Changing Perspectives in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American journal of physics, 53(11), 1056-1065.
Hashish, A. H., Seyd-Darwish, I., & Tit, N. (2020). Addressing Some Physical Misconceptions in Electrostatics of Freshman Engineering Students. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 8(2), 01-07.
Hekkenberg, A. (2012). Addressing misconceptions about electric and magnetic fields: A variation theory analysis of a lecture's learning space (Master's thesis).
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science.New York: Free Press.
Hermita, N., Suhandi, A., Syaodih, E., Samsudin, A., Johan, H., Rosa, F., & Safitri, D. (2017, September). Constructing and implementing a fourtier test about static electricity to diagnose pre-service elementary school teacher’misconceptions. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895(1), p. 012167).
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The physics teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1),41–49.
Keiner, L., & Graulich, N. (2020). Transitions between representational levels: Characterization of organic chemistry students’ mechanistic features when reasoning about laboratory work-up procedures. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21,469-482.
Leinonen, R., Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2013). Overcoming students’ misconceptions concerning thermal physics with the aid of hints and peer interaction during a lecture course. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020112.
Machamer P., Darden L. and Craver C. F., (2000), Thinking about mechanisms, Philosophy of science, 67(1), 1–25.
Moreira, P., Marzabal, A., & Talanquer, V. (2019). Investigating the effect of teacher mediation on student expressed reasoning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 606-617.
Moreira, P., Marzabal, A., & Talanquer, V. (2019). Using a mechanistic framework to characterise chemistry students' reasoning in written explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 120-131.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. Thinking with data, 233-265.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
Putra, G. B. S., & Tang, K. S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific explanations: a case study from a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 569-579.
Raduta, C. (2005). General students' misconceptions related to Electricity and Magnetism. arXiv preprint physics/0503132.
Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499-525.
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285.
Sutton, C. R., & West, L. (1982). Investigating Children's Existing Ideas about Science: A Research Seminar. University of Leicester, School of Education., 20, 606-617.
Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): an exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415-1440.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(1), 1-59.
Van Niekerk, C. (2012). Student misconceptions in a high stakes grade 12 physics examination (Doctoral dissertation, University of Johannesburg).
Wang, C.-Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students' construction of scientific explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-271.
Webb, N.M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21-39.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C.-E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International journal of science education, 28(11), 1289-1313.