本研究基於STS精神與九年一貫課程，以開發學生生活問題問中心的教學模組為主要之目的。兩個研究者設計的教學模組主題分別是煙火與玻璃。未達到多元評量的目的，研究者設計與模組內容相符且具有實用性的多面向評量工具，包括量測學生對於知識理解的科學概念測驗，檢驗學生過程技能表現的過程技能量表，以及探查學生對於模組學習態度感受的學習情意問卷。經由實際課堂中模組學習活動的進行，評量學生學習表現，更進一步反省模組的設計方向。
研究結果顯示，學生在經過模組教學後的知識層面有顯著的進步。過程技能表現，仍以傳統教育所培養的資料閱讀能力為最佳，而各種STS亟欲培養學生的能力表現不如預期，類似的學習活動應更長期的執行才可能使學生在技能表現上有較好的結果。情意態度問卷結果顯示學生多對於模組表達了正面的看法，但受到教學研究時間為暑假的影響，學生選擇無意見的趨中化情形嚴重，學生表現的心態可能無法與正規課程時間相比擬的。研究者建議，模組的設計除包含學生感興趣的動手做活動，更應增加促使學生解決問題動機的設計。若能將模組結合現今課程內容並長期執行於正規的課堂上，才較能夠顯得出模組的實際效益。

According to STS-spirit and the Nine-Year-Joint Curricula Plan, the purpose of this research was to design teaching modules which were developed from the questions around the students' lives. The two modules inclueded in the research were firework and glass, respectively. In order to fill in multiple-assessments, the researcher evolved assorted assessment tools that were practical and in accordance with the content of the modules. They were science-concept test, process-skill scale and attitude questionnaire. In detail, the science-concept test could measure students' understanding of science-content; the process-skill scale could measure students' skill performance; the attitude questionnaire could survey students' perception for using the modules. Applying these modules into real class practice and evaluating students' learning performance, the researcher could have further introspection for designing modules.
The result found that students had obvious progress in the knowledge after the module teaching. The best performance of process skill was still text reading which were fostered from traditional education. However, the students’ abilities which STS would like to cultivate were not as good as expectation. Besides, the similar activities should be executed for a long term and then they could make students have better progress in the skill performance.
The result of the attitude questionnaire showed that students had positive views toward modules. Nevertheless, this research was influenced by summer vocation. As a result, more students choose “no comment” in multiple choices. Their attitude can not be compared with their authentic attitude in real science class. Moreover, the researcher suggested that module designing not only included hands-on activities students interested in but also increased the motivation promoting students to do problem-solving. Only when the developed modules could be combined with curriculums and be applied into real classes, they could demonstrate the real utility of modules.

一、中文部分
王文科（2002）：教育研究法，七版。五南書局，台北市。
王美芬（2001）：九年一貫學校本位、統整課程及多元評量的實踐—以「自然與生活科技」領域為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊，25，1-15。
王澄霞（1994）：建立STS教師能力專業基準。國科會八十五年度科學教育專題研究計畫成果討論會，台北市。
王澄霞（1995）：STS活動中之「學」與「教」。科學教育學刊，3(1)，115-137。
王澄霞（1996）：化學領域之STS 師資培育課程架構。化學，54（2），103-114。
王澄霞（1997a）：STS教師的專業成長。科學教育學刊，5，23。
王澄霞（1997b）：代表性STS活動類型分析。1996物理教育學術論文研討會論文彙編，物理教育學會。
江清俊、洪志明（2003）：九年一貫之教學模組開發與設計「烈焰中誕生卻如冰晶美麗-玻璃」。科學教育月刊，260，61~72。
沈家平（2003）：STS模式教學對學生批判思考能力之影響。台北市：國立台灣師範大學物理所碩士論文。
佘曉清（1994）：各國STS課程教材評介（四）－美國的科學－技術－社會（STS）教育。科學教育月刊，171，12-17。
吳孟修（1998）：STS探究實驗設計開發學生創造力。台北市：國立台灣師範大學化學所碩士論文。
吳璧純、甘漢銧（2000）：一個小學STS 教學模組設計-----農藥知多少。STS科學教育研討會（Ⅲ）論文彙編。國立台灣師範大學編印。
周岱學（2003）：STS融入教學對國中生創造力與問題解決能力之影響。台北市：國立台灣師範大學化學所碩士論文。
邱秀玲（1998）：STS 教育實踐「生活科技課程」。台灣教育，575，45-51。
黃秀如（2002）：網路與雜誌書3－財富地圖。網路與書出版社，臺北市。
莊奇勳（1996）：師院環境科學STS教學模組之開發研究。中華民國第十二屆科學教育學術研討會。國立台中科學博物館。國科會計畫成果報告：NSC84-2511-S-023-007。
連啟瑞（1996）：國小科學-技學-社會(STS)教學模組架構發展研究。國科會計畫成果報告：NSC84-2511-S-152-014。
連啟瑞、盧玉玲（2003）：國際上STS科學教育的實施與意義之研究。科學課程論述，國立台灣師範大學編印。
教育部（2000）：國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北市：教育部。
黃萬居（2002）：行動研究與自然科教學。台北市立師院現代教育論壇「行動研究與自然科教學研討會」，4-11。
黃鴻博（1997）：影響教師實施STS 教學活動因素之研究。科學教育與研究，7，4-13。
黃鴻博（1998）：以STS教育理念改進國小自然科教學之研究。科學教育研究與發展，12，3-17。
陳文典（1997）：STS 教學教師所需之專業準備。科學教育月刊，5(2)，167-189。
陳文典（2000）：由國民中小學課程目標看---「自然與生活科技」學習領域之教學與教材。科學教育月刊，231，40-42。
蔡擇文（2002）：國小五年級自然科融入STS教學對學生學習態度、批判思考與科技創造力之影響。高雄市：國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鍾國俊（2001）：STS模式教學及其教學成效之探討。台北市：國立台灣師範大學物理所碩士論文。
魏明通（1994a）：國STS課程教材評介（一）－英國SIS及SISCON計畫。科學教育月刊，168，2-8。
魏明通（1994b）：國STS課程教材評介（二）－英國SATIS計畫。科學教育月刊，169，12-19。
魏明通（2000）：科學教育。台北市，五南書局。
謝祥宏、段曉林（2001）：教學與評量-- 一種互為鏡像(mirror image)關係。科學教育月刊，241，2-13。
蘇育任（2001）：年一貫自然與生活科技統整課程的設計實例。國教輔導，41（1），2-13。
二、英文部分
American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) .(1993). Benchmark for science leteracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Chemical Society. (1985). CHEMCOM: Chemistry in the Community. Field test education. Washionton, D. C. Author.
Aikenhead,G.（1994）.Consequences to Learning Science Through STS:A Research Perspective.In J.Solomon.& G. Aikenhead. STS Education-International Perspectives on Reform(p.169-186).New York:Columbia University.
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practice. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Edmondson, K. M. （1999）. Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee and J. D. Novak eds.,Assessing science understanding,. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press.
Guilford, J. P.(1967). The nature of human intellence. Cambridge MA: Propoise Books.
Iozzi, L. A. (1982). Preparing for Tomorrow's World. Rutgers, NJ, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick.
Iskandar, S.M., (1991). An Evaluation of Science-Technology-Society Approach to Science Teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C.（1999）. Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.
Lawrence, R. K. and Liu, C. T. (1996). Enhancing Student and Teacher Understanding of the Nature of Science via STS. In Yager, R. E. (ed.). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. State University of New York Press. Albany.
Lewis, J. (1981). Science in Society. London, Heineman Educational Books.
Mackinnu, A. (1991). Comparison of Learning Outcomes between Classes Taught with a Science-Technology-Society (STS) Approach and Textbook Orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
McComas, W.F. (1988). Putting STS to the test.
McComas, W.F. (1989). Science process skills in S/T/S education: The results of the 1987-88 Chautauqua Workshop. Chautauqua Notes, 3(8), 2-3.
Myers, R. E. and Torrance, E. P. (1968). Streth. Minneapolis, Minnesoda: Perceptive Publishing Company.
Myers, L.H. (1988). Analysis of Student Outcomes in Ninth Grade Physical Science Taught with a Science Department Science/Technology/Society Focus versus One Taught with a Textbook Orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Nation Research Council（1996）. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Nation Science Teachers Association Position Statement(1982). Science-technology-society: Sience education for the 1980's. NSTA, 1742 Cnnection Aventue, N. W., Washionton, D. C. 20009.
Nation Science Teachers Association position statement (1991, April). Science/technology/society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all. NSTA Reports!, 36-37.
Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B.（1984）. Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Sullivan, C.Y. (1997). NAEP 1996 Science Report Card for the Nation and the States. Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. ERIC Service No.: ED405221.
Paul, R. (1990). What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. CA: Sonoma State University.
Pellegrino, J. W., N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser. （2001）. Knowing what students know: The Science and design of educational assessment. Washington,D.C.: National Academy Press.
Roberts, D. A. (Ed.). (1981). Science and Society teaching units. (A series of modules). Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Simpson, R. D. and Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude , 74(1), 1-18.
Solomon, J. (1983). Ways of Living. Science In a Social CONtext. ERIC Service No.: ED248107.
Solomon, J.(1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Southerland, S. A., M. U. Smith, and C. L. Cummins（1999）. “What do you mean by that?” Using structured interviews to asess science understanding. In Assessing science understanding, eds. J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press.
Thomas, G.. (1993). Some Reactions to The Teaching of Science USing a Modular Scheme. Educational Review , 45, Issue 3.
Yager, R.E. (1987). Assess all five domains of science. The Science Teacher, 54(7), p.33-37.
Yager, R.E. (1988). Features which separate least effective from most effective science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(3), 165-77.
Yager, R.E. (1990a). Instructional outcomes changes with STS. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 2-13.
Yager, R.E.（1990b）.Workshop Science/Technology/Society As Reform in Science Education. Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..
Yager, R. E. (1996) Science/technology/society as reform in science education. N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Yager, R. E., Blunck, S. M. and Ajam, M. (1991).The Iowa Assessment Package for Eva; iatopmomFive Domains of Science Education: The University of Iowa. Science Education Center, Iowa Cite, IA.
Yager, R.E. and Penick, J.E. (1984). What students say about science teaching and science teachers. Science Education, 68(2),143-52.
Yager, R. E. and Tamir, P.(1993). STS Approach: Reason, Intentions, Accomplishments, and outcomes. Science education, 77(6), 637-658
Yager, R.E.; Weld, D. Scope, (1999). Sequence and coordination: The Iowa Project, a national reform effor in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169-194.