本研究主要探討實施融合論證教學之線上生物科技相關議題課程，對學生學習概念及探究能力之影響。研究方法採二因子實驗設計，研究對象以桃園、台中、彰化、高雄共5所學校214位國中生為研究對象，分為四種教學實驗組（紙本傳統教學、紙本論證教學、線上傳統教學、線上論證教學）。教學內容為七年級自然與生活科技領域第二冊「生物科技」相關議題。研究中採用貼近性評量和立即性評量，以呈現學生在實施論證教學或線上平臺教學後概念與探究學習的表現。並運用相依樣本t-test、2-way ANCOVA和2-way ANOVA等統計方法來探討不同教學實驗組的效果。主要研究結果如下：
一、貼近性評量前後測以相依樣本t-test分析，結果顯示，使用紙本論證、線上傳統、線上論證皆顯著提升學生概念；紙本傳統、紙本論證、線上傳統和線上論證對探究能力提升都有顯著差異。
二、貼近性評量2-way ANCOVA分析以教學方式、教學法為自變項、後測成績為依變項、前測成績為共變項，結果顯示，使用線上或論證教學能顯著提升學生概念，但對於探究能力不同教學實驗組別未達顯著差異。
三、在教學過程中，立即性評量2-way ANOVA分析以教學方式、教學法為自變項、成績為依變項，結果顯示使用線上論證教學對學生學習概念和探究能力都有提升。
四、貼近性評量的2-way ANCOVA分析以教學方式、教學法為自變項、後測成績為依變項、前測成績為共變項，結果顯示，使用線上教學對低成就組學生在遺傳概念的學習有顯著提升。
實施結合論證教學的線上模組，能協助國中生學習生物技術相關議題，在學生學習的歷程中，提升其概念及探究能力；然而對低成就學生而言，採用線上傳統教學在貼近性評量上的成效，優於結合論證教學。因此建議，在使用論證教學時，應再考量學生的背景知識程度。

This study investigates the effects of implementing an argumentation-oriented online module on students’ learning about biotechnology related issues. A two-factor experimental design was adopted. Two hundred and fourteen secondary school students from five schools located in Taoyuan, Taichung, Changhua, and Kaohsiung were recruited as the research subjects. The subjects were segregated into four experimental groups. A different teaching method was employed in each group, including the paper-based traditional (PT) method, the paper-based argumentative (PA) method, the online traditional (CT) method, and the online argumentative (CA) method. The teaching content was the “Biotechnology” segment presented in Book 2 of the Grade 7 Science and Technology. Close and immediate assessments were applied to elucidate the students’ cognitive outcomes and inquiry abilities. Moreover, Pair t-tests, 2-way ANCOVA, and 2-way ANOVA were applied to examine the effects of the four teaching methods. The research findings are as follows:
1. The Pair t-test results of the close assessments indicate that the paper-based argumentative teaching, online traditional teaching and online argumentative teaching method significantly enhanced the students’ cognitive outcomes. The paper-based traditional teaching, paper-based argumentative teaching, online traditional teaching and online argumentative teaching method also significantly enhanced the students’ inquiry abilities.
2. The 2-way ANCOVA use delivery modes and teaching strategies as independent variable, posttest as dependent variable and pretest as covariance, the results of close assessments indicate that the argumentative or online teaching method significantly enhanced the students’ cognitive outcomes. However, this method failed to significantly influence the students’ inquiry abilities.
3. The 2-way ANOVA use delivery modes and teaching strategies as independent variable, posttest as dependent variable, the results of immediate assessments indicate that the online argumentative teaching method significantly enhanced the students’ cognitive outcomes and inquiry abilities during teaching intervention.
4. The2-way ANCOVA use delivery modes and teaching strategies as independent variable, posttest as dependent variable, the results of close assessments indicate that the online teaching method significantly enhanced the cognitive outcomes of underachieving students.
Combining argumentation and online teaching effectively enhances middle school students’ conceptual understanding and inquiry abilities during learning biotechnology related issues; however, for students with low background knowledge, the performance in close assessment was better in the online traditional instruction compared to in the online argumentative instruction. We suggest the teachers should concern students’ background knowledge while combining online and argumentative teaching methods.

參考文獻
中文文獻
王郁文（2003）。科學探索活動及高層次思考對國中生科學素養影響之探究~以[生物科技大未來]為活動設計主題。國立中山大學生物科學系研究所論文，未出版，高雄市。
李松濤、林煥祥、洪振方（2010）。探究式教學對學童科學論證能力影響之研究。科學教育學刊，18(3)，177-203。
林志能、洪振方(2008)。論證模式分析及其評量要素。科學教育月刊，312，2-18。
林樹聲、黃柏鴻（2009）。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究—不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊，17(2)，111-133。
周源本（2007）。探究應用不同「教學法」對於WISE課程對國三學生地球科學學習的影響。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
吳正文（2011）。小組論證對高二學生概念改變影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
施孟光（2012）。電腦模擬融入論證教學對九年級學生論證能力、科學理解力與學習成效影響。國立彰化師範大學科教所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
陳木金、許瑋珊（2012）。從PISA閱讀評量的國際比較探討閱讀素養教育的方向。教師天地，181，4-15。
陳素蓉（2014）。利用電腦輔助閱讀系統以提升低成就高職學生的英文學習興趣。國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
翁琪涵（2007）。國小六年級學生面對社會性科學議題做決定之研究－以「湖山水庫興建」議題為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林（2010）。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊，18(5)，443-467。
藍珮菁（2012）。網路論證的教學策略對國中學生生理概念與論證學習成效。國立交通大學教育所碩碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
蔡詩愉（2011）。應用網路化論證系統融入國小高年級環境教育之效益研究—以社會性科學議題教學為例。國立新竹教育大學教育研究所論文，未出版，新竹市。
蔡錕承、張欣怡（2011）。結合實物與虛擬實驗促進八年級學生「溫度與熱」知識整合、實驗能力與學習策略之研究。科學教育學刊，19(5)，435-459。
謝慈雪（2010）。國中生社會性科學議題的論證研究。國立臺灣師範大學生命科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
鄭宗哲（2002）。大眾生物科技講座專輯。高雄市：國立科學工藝博物館。
鄭蕙如、林世華（2004）。Bloom認知領域教育目標分類修訂版理論與實務之探討─以九年一貫課程數學領域分段能力指標為例。台東大學教育學報，15(2)，47-274。
教育部國民及學前教育署 （2012）。九年一貫課程綱要97課綱【公告】。台北市：教育部。2015年6月13日，取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/9CC2/9cc_97.php
教育部國民及學前教育署（2014）。12年國民基本教育【公告】。台北市：教育部。2015年6月13日，取自http://12basic.edu.tw/Detail.php?LevelNo=8
經濟部工業局（2014）。2014生技產業白皮書【公告】。台北市：經濟部。2015年6月13日，取自http://www.biopharm.org.tw/downloads_content.php?li=1

英文文獻
AlShaali, S. & Varshney, U. (2005) On the usability of mobile commerce. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 29-37.
Barrow, L. H., & Germann, P. (1987). Acid rain education and its implications for curricular development: A teacher survey. International Journal of Science Education, 71(1), 15-20.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic wystems: An examination of students’ argument about density. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447-492.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday, 15(4). Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2762/2504
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing thelessonordoing science: Argument inhigh school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861-871.
Kinnear, J. F., & Martin, M. D. (1987). Symbol use and concept development in genetic engineering. Paper presented at the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics, pp. 26-29.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behaviour in the digital environment: Changes in reading behaviour over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712.
Reinking, D., & Rickman, S. S. (1990). The effects of computer-mediated texts on the vocabulary learning and comprehension of intermediate-grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 395-411.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369-393.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
Slotta, J. (2002). Designing the “Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE)”. Educational Technology, 42(5), 15–20.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.