本研究旨在探討教學者在高一基礎化學（一）課程中融入科學史及社會性科學議題後對學生科學本質理解的影響。配合課本單元順序先進行八週的科學史教學融入，採講述式教學，內容以課本提及的為主再進行額外補充；接著進行為期四週的社會性科學議題融入課程，以時事「無核家園」為題探討太陽能取代核能的可能性，以修正式學習環教學，搭配小組討論、角色扮演、辯論和發表。研究對象為新北市某公立高中一年級學生，共三個班，有效樣本共97位。研究工具使用VOSTS9問卷，依序在學期初、科學史教學介入後及社會性科學議題教學介入後進行三次施測，並以McNemar卡方分析處理數據；社會性科學議題教學介入後會另請學生填寫關於主觀性、經驗性及暫時性的學習單，依其內容評定科學本質理解之觀點。研究結果顯示高中生的科學本質在「科學知識的特性」項目多數持有理性觀點，「假說、理論與定律」項目持有理性觀點的人數最少。科學史教學後，學生在「科學方法」與「發明假設」這兩項科學本質理解有顯著提升。社會性科學議題教學後，學生在「領域間的調和性」及「分類系統」這兩項科學本質理解有顯著下降；「主觀性」及「經驗性」僅不到三成的人具有理性觀點。研究最後對科學史及社會性科學議題融入教學和評量方法提出建議與改善，期許對未來科學本質理解提升的相關研究有所貢獻。

The purpose of this study is to integrate history of science (HOS) and socio-scientific issues (SSI) into fundamental chemistry course for affecting students' understandings of nature of science (NOS). The HOS course lasted for eight weeks first, then SSI for 4 weeks. The HOS content is based on textbooks taught in didactic manner with supplementary instruction. SSI topic “non-nuclear homes” about replacing nuclear power with solar energy is taught by referring to the revised learning cycle, in accordance with group discussion, role playing, debating, and presentation. Participants included 97 tenth-grade students in New Taiper City. The part 9 of “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS9) questionnaire was used to examine students’ NOS understanding before and after both instruction interventions. Data from valid sample were analyzed with McNemar Chi-square test. After SSI instruction, students were also asked to answer an open-ended questionnaire containing assessement about the subjective, empirical, and tentative nature of science. Results showed that most of senior high school students hold informed views on “characteristics of knowledge”, but naive on “hypotheses, theories and laws”. Students’ views on “scientific method” and “invention of hypotheses” improved significantly after HOS instruction, but significantly became worse on “coherence of concepts across disciplines” and “classification schemes” after SSI instruction. It is also found from answers to open-ended questionnaire that less than 30% of students held informed views on the subjective and empirical nature of science. Finally, this study proposes the way of HOS and SSI integrated into regular science instruction, which is intended to contribute to future research on improving the understanding of NOS.

吳玫緗 (2008)。科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性(未出版碩士論文)。國立交通大學。
林淑梤、劉聖忠、黃茂在、陳素芬、張文華 (2008)。運用科學史傳達科學本質之教學實務探討－以簡單機械單元為例。科學教育月刊，315，2-18。
林陳涌 (1996)。「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育月刊，4(1)，31-58。
林陳涌、鄭榮輝、張永達 (2009)。融入科學史教學對高中學生的科學本質觀、對科學的態度以及學習成就的影響。科學教育學刊，17(2)，93-109。
林樹聲 (2004a)。通識素養的培育與爭議性科學議題的教學。南華通識教育研究(2)，25-37。
林樹聲 (2004b)。應用學習環策略進行科技引起的社會爭議議題之教學研究。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號：NSC92-2511-S-415-003）。
林樹聲 (2006)。從爭議性科技議題的教學設計和實踐中詮釋科學教師的角色－個案研究。科學教育學刊，14(3)，237-255。
林樹聲 (2007)。國小資深科學教師的專業改變：以基因改造食品議題之教學為例。科學教育學刊，15(3)，241-264。
邱明富、高慧蓮 (2004)。科學史融入教學以提升國小學童科學本質觀之研究。 國立台北師範學院學報，17(1)，183-214。
邱明富、高慧蓮 (2006)。科學史融入教學對國小學童科學本質觀影響之探究. 科學教育學刊，14(2)，163-187。
邱奕華、劉湘瑤 (2014)。科學史教學對學生科學認識觀與概念學習的影響——不同教學順序的比較。科學教育學刊，22(3)，307-330。
邱瑞宇 (2020)。社會科學議題導入教學對大學生學習成效之影響。人文社會科學研究：教育類，14(3)，59-83。
姚宗翰 (2010)。國中生物科教師科學本質觀、教學信念與教學實踐之個案研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學。
洪振方 (1998)。科學教學的另類選擇：融入科學史的教學。屏師科學教育，7，2-10。
科技部 (2020)。科技部學術倫理案件處理及審議要點(科部誠字第1090009201A號 令)。
翁秀玉、段曉林 (1997)。科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊，201，2-16。
教育部 (2008)。97年度國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。
教育部 (2009)。普通高級中學課程綱要。
教育部 (2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校自然科學領域。
許國忠、王靜如 (2003)。科學本質教學初探。科學教育研究與發展季刊，33， 15-29。
陳淑媛、洪振方 (1998)。科學史融入基礎理化教學之行動研究。物理教育學刊，2(1)，15-44。
陳琼輝 (2013)。以科學史歷程短文教材設計之家庭聯絡本對八年級學生科學本質的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學。
黃淑雅 (2006)。透過中文版VOSTS1與VOSTS9之工具了解國小自然與生活科技領域教師科學本質觀之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學。
靳知勤 (2002)。效化「基本科學素養」問卷。科學教育學刊，10(3)，287-308。
靳知勤 (2008)。臺灣STS教育領域學位論文之發展回顧與評析。科學教育學刊，16(4)，351-373。
靳知勤 (2014)。臺灣所需優先解決的科學教育問題─科學教育與科學學者之觀點。教育學報，42(1)，53-76。
靳知勤、吳靜宜 (2017)。國小學生對社會性科學議題學習環境之知覺：個人學習動機、小組合作能力與教室環境知覺。教育學報，45(1)，71-97。
劉美慧 (1998)。議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報(8)，173-199。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中 (2007)。科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊，15(3)，335-356。
戰克勝 (2006)。互動式科學小故事對高中學生科學本質觀之影響。屏東教大科學教育，24，3-20。
戰克勝 (2008)。「互動式歷史小故事」在大學通識科學教育之應用研究。科學教育學刊，16(2)，125-146。
謝州恩、劉湘瑤 (2013)。省思九年一貫自然與生活科技課程綱要中的科學本質內涵。科學教育研究與發展季刊，66，53-76。
謝憶芳 (2011)。社會性科學議題教學與科學素養之探討－以太陽能電池為主題(未出版碩士論文)。
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: abandoning scientism, but... Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 607-627.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument："Views on Science-Technology-Society"(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.
Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on science-technology-society (form CDN.mc.5). Saskatoon, Canada, S7N OWO: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy: New York: Oxford University Press.
Botton, C., & Brown, C. (1998). The reliability of some VOSTS items when used with preservice secondary science teachers in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 53-71
Brandon, R. N. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99, 59-73.
Conley, A. M. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories: Springer Netherlands.
Fouad, K., Masters, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2015). Using history of science to teach nature of science to elementary students. Science & Education, 24, 1103-1140.
Kahraman, F., & Karatas, F. Ö. (2015). Story telling: research and action to improve 6th grade students' views about certain aspects of nature of science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(1).
Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100.
Khishfe, R. (2012b). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 1-26.
Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928-2953.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
Khishfe, R. (2015). A look into students retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639-1667.
Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299-334.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil Test of Basic Scientific Literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331-359.
Lederman, J. S. (2006). Development of a valid and reliable protocol for the assessment of early childhood students’ conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Saarmste Executive, 446.
Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of the nature of science, Form D . Unpublished manuscript. Illinois Institute of technology, Chicago.
Lederman, J. S., & Ko, E. K. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
Lederman, N. G. (1999). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2), 1-12.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-879). Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-239.
Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Relational analysis of college science‐major students’ epistemological beliefs toward science and conceptions of learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2273-2289.
Lin, C.-Y. (1994). Perspectives of science teaching, understanding of the nature of science, and attitudes toward science among preservice elementary teachers in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Iowa.
Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science: New York: Routledge.
Mccomas, W. F. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: what content consensus exists in popular books on the nature of science. Paper presented at the 138Annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
Mccomas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The role and character of the nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Springer, Dordrecht.
National Research Council. (1966). National science education standards.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 Science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943-960.
Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
Rubba, P. A., Bradford, C. S., & Harkness, W. F. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the Views on Science Technology Society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 387-400.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2014). How to use historical approach to teach nature of science in chemistry education? Science & Education, 23(8), 1605-1636.
Tsai, C.-C. (2007). Teachers' scientific epistemological views: the coherence with instruction and students' views. Science Education, 91(2), 222-243.
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.
Vazquez-Alonso, A., & Manassero-Mas, M.-A. (1999). Response and scoring models for the 'Views on Science-Technology-Society' instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 231-247.
Waks, L. J. (1992). The responsibility spiral a curriculum framework for STS education. Theory Into Practice, 31(1), 13-19.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond sts a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.