本研究旨在課程中運用QCNLive並探討不同探究式教學對高二學生的影響。本研究為準實驗研究法，研究對象為247位台北市某高中二年級學生。探究式教學在近年來成為科學教學的主流，探究式教學營造的學習環境，包括完全開放式探究、引導式探究（介於完全開放式探究與結構式探究之間）以及結構式探究。不同的探究式教學對學生學習的影響仍有許多爭議。因此，本研究旨在探討結構式探究與引導式探究教學對學生學習的影響。
本研究設計結構式與引導式兩種探究式地震課程（課程中的探究活動均使用QCNLive），並運用地震學成就測驗、地震學態度量表、學習環境量表來評估不同教學對學習者的影響。研究結果顯示:1.結構式探究教學班級學生在記憶性問題表現較佳。2.引導式探究教學班級學生在問題解決問答表現較佳。3.當學習者感受到的學習環境，越接近他／她心中理想的學習環境時，對地震學越能抱持越正向的態度。4.地震學成就測驗與地震學態度成正相關。5.高二學生偏好的探究學習環境為兼具教師中心之結構式探究與學生中心之開放式探究的引導式探究。

This study aimed to explore the impact of the use of QCNLive and different forms of inquiry education on senior high school sophomores. The study adopted the quasi-experimental research method, taking a group of 247 sophomores at a certain Taipei city senior high school as subjects.
In recent years, inquiry education has become the mainstream of science education. The learning environment which inquiry education creates includes open inquiry, structured inquiry, and guided inquiry (which falls between open inquiry and structured inquiry). There is still a good deal of controversy surrounding the effects that the different kinds of inquiry education have on students. Hence, the focus of this study was to investigate the effects that structured inquiry and guided inquiry methods have on students’ learning.

The study was designed to look at two kinds of inquiry education, structured and guided, as used in courses on the study of earthquakes (all inquiry activities of the courses used QCNLive), and made use of seismology achievement testing, seismology attitude rating, and learning environment rating to assess the different education methods on the learners.

Results demonstrated that:
1. Students in the structured inquiry class performed better on memory-related problems.
2. Students in the guided inquiry class performed better in problem-solving question and answer sessions.
3. The closer learners felt the learning environment was to their own ideal learning environment, the more able they were to maintain a positive attitude towards earthquake study.
4. There is a positive correlation between seismology achievement testing and seismology attitude.
5. The two preferred inquiry learning environments for high school sophomores were a teacher-centered structured inquiry model and a student-centered open guided inquiry model.

一、中文部分
毛松霖, & 張菊秀. (1997). 「探究式教學法」與 「講述式教學法」 在國中地球科學 「氣象」單元中學生學習成效比較. 科學教育學刊, 5(4), 461-497.
白佩宜. (2009). 探討不同探究式教學法對高一學生科學探究能力成長之影響. 國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所未出版碩士論文.
李旻憲, & 張俊彥. (2004). 地球科學教室學習環境問卷之研發與初探. 科學教育學刊, 12(4), 421-443.
侯政宏. (1996). 探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「太陽視運動」單元中學生學習成效之比較. 國立臺灣師範大學地球科學所未出版碩士論文.
洪振方. (2004). 探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探. 科學課程論述 (Ⅱ)(2004 年 11 月 20 日, 教育部主辦研討會資料, 147-167).
唐國詩. (1996). 探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學「星象」單元中學生學習成效之比較. 國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所未出版碩士論文.
張正杰, & 楊芳瑩. (2006). 台灣地區高中生地震防災概念研究. 科學教育研究與發展季刊(44), 1-19.
張國恩. (2002). 從學習科技的發展看資訊融入教學的內涵. 九年一貫課程議題教育研討會, 民 90 年.
張菊秀. (1996). 「探究式教學法」與「講述式教學法」在國中地球科學 「氣象」單元中學生學習成效比較. 國立台灣師範大學地球科學研究所未出版碩士論文.
張鈺梅, & 許民陽. (2005). 國小高年級學童地震相關板塊概念之研究. 台北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文未出版.
許民陽, 王郁軒, & 梁添水. (2008). 國小高年級地震防災教學之研究. Research and Development(51), 34-59.
黃台珠, Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (1998). 台灣和西澳科學教室環境的跨國研究: 結合質性與量的研究方法: 科學教育學刊.
楊秀停, & 王國華. (2007). 實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響. 科學教育學刊, 15(4), 439-459.
葉婉儀. (2003). 探討社會性科學議題地震教學模組對高一地科學習之成效分析. 臺灣師範大學地球科學系學位論文.
潘淑琦. (2006). 資訊融入「自然與生活科技」領域之行動研究-以探究教學活動設計為例. 生活科技教育, 39(7), 87-107.
鄭湧涇, & 楊坤原. (1995). 對生物學的態度量表之發展與效化. 科學教育學刊, 3(2), 189-211.
謝甫佩, & 洪振方. (2004). 國小學生科學探究活動的課程設計及實施成果之個案研究. 師大學報: 科學教育類, 49(2), 61-86.
顧炳宏, 陳瓊森, & 溫媺純. (2011). 從學生的表現與觀點探討引導發現式教學作為發展探究教學之折衷方案角色的成效-以密度概念為例. 科學教育學刊, 19(3), 257-282.

二、英文部分
Agne, R. M., & Blick, D. J. (1972). A comparison of earth science classes taught by using original data in a research‐approach technique versus classes taught by conventional approaches not using such data. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(1), 83-89.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of science teacher education, 13(1), 1-12.
Basaǧa, H., Geban, Ö., & Tekkaya, C. (1994). The effect of the inquiry teaching method on biochemistry and science process skill achievements. Biochemical Education, 22(1), 29-32.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teach, 52–58.
Chang, C. Y., Hsiao, C. H., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2006). Preferred–actual learning environment “spaces” and earth science outcomes in Taiwan. Science Education, 90(3), 420-433.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Donaher, S. (2012). Inquiry Teaching in the Earth Science Literature: The current state of inquiry in higher education and what can be learned from the K-12 literature.
Edwards, C. H. (1997). Promoting student inquiry. SCIENCE TEACHER-WASHINGTON-, 64, 18-21.
Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49-53.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693-705.
Haury, D. L., & OH, E. C. (1993). Teaching Science through Inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED, 359, 048.
Jarrett, D. (2009). Inquiry strategies for science and mathematics learning. Colección Digital Eudoxus(7).
Könings, K. D., Brand‐Gruwel, S., & Merriënboer, J. J. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645-660.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
Ladd, P. D., & Ruby Jr, R. (1999). Learning style and adjustment issues of international students. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 363-367.
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 231-247.
Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1991). The inquiry level of junior high activities: Implications to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 111-121.
Qingchao, K., Xiufang, M., & Guangyan, H. (2008). Design and effectiveness of scientific inquiry learning based on campus weather station. Paper presented at the Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008 International Conference on.
Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387-404.
Tamir, P., Stavy, R., & Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193-205.
Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D., & Lodewijks, H. G. (2002). Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and instruction, 12(3), 263-284.