本研究的目的為發展技術型高中工科學生科學素養的向度與指標，然後根據此向度指標發展並效化技術型高中工科學生科學素養的題本。本研究區分為兩個研究目的，研究目的一首先透過文獻探討、專家諮詢，初擬技術型高中工科學生科學素養的內涵，續透過兩回合的大慧(Delphi)調查尋求28位學者以及41位技術型高中教師的意見，經由大慧調查的統計分析，以及兩次的專家會議達成共識，最後確立技術型高中工科學生科學素養架構。此架構總共有五個向度，包括具備基本的科學知識(向度A)、運用基本科學探究與溝通的能力以解決問題(向度B)、運用科學思考的能力於日常生活中(向度C)、應用科學知識與方法於所在職域中(向度D)、具備對科學的適當態度與行為意向(向度E)。
研究目的二為根據目的一所建構之科學素養向度與指標，發展出評量技術型高中工科學生科學素養的題本，並效化此題本。初步的效化結果顯示題本具有專家效度以及內容效度。339位學生的作答資料用以提供資訊並建立效標關聯效度和構念效度，前者受到支持，後者則有改進的空間。「科學素養」總題本達到高的Cronbach’s α係數，且題項分析的結果在可接受的範圍。最後，基於研究結果提出對於技術型高中課程內容設計的建議。

Abstract: The purposes of this research are to develop a set of indicators of scientific literacy and then utilize it to develop and validate the Test of Scientific Literacy for students in the industrial sector of vocational high schools in Taiwan. In order to achieve its purposes, this research was conducted by way of the implementation of two studies. The focus of the first study was to develop an initial framework on scientific literacy that was specifically catered for students in the industrial sector of vocational high schools through literature review and consultation with expert science educators who had done research in scientific literacy. A Delphi survey was conducted in two rounds in order to collect data from 28 scholars and 41 vocational high school teachers. Statistics were computed and the framework was finalized through consensus in two rounds of meeting involving from experts in science and vocational education. A total of five dimensions were identified, namely possessing basic scientific knowledge (dimension A), being able to engage in basic scientific inquiry and communicate in order to solve problems (dimension B), apply scientific thinking to solve problems encountered in everyday life (dimension C), applying scientific knowledge and methods at workplace (dimension D), and carrying appropriate attitude and behavioral disposition towards science (dimension E).
The second study aims at developing a test of scientific literacy according to the framework established in study one and then undergoing the process of validation. Initial validation results were supportive with respect to expert and content validation. Empirical data collected from 339 students were used to furnish information about criterion and construct validity. While the results with respect to the former were supportive, the results for the latter revealed some room for improvement. Further supportive evidences came from high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all subscales as well as acceptable results based on item analysis. Lastly, insights on the curriculum for the industrial sector of vocational high school were gleaned based on the established framework and the initial results from the test instrument.

王夕堯(2006)。「綜合統整」的能力。載於教育部暨台灣師範大學(主編)，九年一貫課程自然與生活科技學習領域科學素養的內涵與解析(3版)。臺北市：教育部。
王慶龍(2005)。高職機械科學生電腦素養之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系在職進修碩士班，臺北市。
汪寶明(2008)。高職電機與電子群學生所需基礎生物電子科技素養之研究(未出版博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所，臺北市。
李隆盛、林坤誼、莊善媛(2006)。高中生活科技新課程的工程趨向。課程與教學季刊，9(1)，51-60。
林振盈(2004)。高級工業職業學校學生電腦素養之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系在職進修碩士班，臺北市。
林素玲(2005)。我國高中(職)工業類科進修學校電機電子群學生電腦素養之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣彰化大學工業教育與技術研究所，彰化市。
林樹聲(1999)。科學素養的省思，科學教育月刊，222，16-26。
沈家平、陳文典(2006)。批判思考智能。載於教育部暨台灣師範大學(主編)，九年一貫課程自然與生活科技學習領域科學素養的內涵與解析(3版)。臺北市：教育部。
紀惠英、林煥祥(2009)。從PISA測驗結果看九年一貫課程成效與高中職學生成績的差異。教育政策論壇，12(1)，1-39。
陳文典(2006a)。「科學態度」的素養。載於教育部暨台灣師範大學(主編)，九年一貫課程自然與生活科技學習領域科學素養的內涵與解析(3版)。臺北市：教育部。
陳文典(2006b)。「推理論證」智能。載於教育部暨台灣師範大學(主編)，九年一貫課程自然與生活科技學習領域科學素養的內涵與解析(3版)。臺北市：教育部。
陳文典(2006c)。「創造思考」智能。載於教育部暨台灣師範大學(主編)，九年一貫課程自然與生活科技學習領域科學素養的內涵與解析(3版)。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要(自然與生活科技學習領域)。台北市：教育部。
教育部(2009a )。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準一機械群。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2009b )。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準一動力機械群。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2009c )。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準一電機與電子群。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2009d )。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準一化工群。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2009e)。職業學校群科課程綱要暨設備基準一土木建築群。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2014年9月16日)。十二年國民基本教育。取自http://12basic.edu.tw/Detail.php?LevelNo=43
教育部(2013)。教育部提升國民素養專案計畫報告書。台北市：教育部提升國民素養專案辦公室。
教育部技職司(1998)。職業學校各類科課程標準總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部技職司(2008)。職業學校群科課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。
黃台珠、蔡俊彥、陳忠志、李育諭(2012)。2012年科技與語文素養計畫─公民科技素養調查研究－子計畫二：自然資源相關情境的調查工具及效化。國科會計畫執行成果報告。高雄市：中山大學公民素養推動研究中心。
賴香如、李碧霞、卓俊辰、呂昌明、溫婉玉、周維(2010)。透過現職教師建構國中健康與體育學習領域之自尊教學指標。教育科學研究期刊，55(1)，127-154。
郭生玉(1999)。心理與教育測驗。臺北市：精華書局。
張雨青(2006)。高級商業職業學校學生資訊素養之調查研究—以資料處理科為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所，臺北市。
楊文方(2009)。高職實用技能學程電機電子群學生電腦素養與電腦態度之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣彰化大學工業教育與技術研究所，彰化市。
楊孟山(2005)。台灣地區高職學生網路素養現況之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣彰化大學工業教育與技術研究所，彰化市。
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(2007)。科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養-台灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15(6)，627-646。
詹則紘(2005)。高職原住民籍學生電腦素養之研究-以花東地區為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣彰化大學工業教育與技術研究所，彰化市。
Adler, M. & Ziglio. E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Altun-Yalçin ,S., Açisli, S., & Turgut Ü.(2011). Determining the levels of pre-service science teachers’ scientific literacy and investigating effectuality of the education faculties about developing scientific literacy. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences ,15, 783-787.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York : Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of Science Literacy (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of Science Literacy (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (Eds.) (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72, 185-201.
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Boujaoude S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon, International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139-156.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practical action. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. C. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and science school. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90(2), 227-252.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Delbeq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guideto nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, USA: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Durant, J., Evans G., & Thomas, G. (1992). Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science, Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 161-182.
Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of Educational Measurement. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Feinstein, N. (2011).Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168-185.
Fensham, P. J. (2011). Globalization of science education : comment and a commentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 698-709.
Ford, C., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-cultural curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Resources in Education (ERIC), ED405220.
Harlen, W. (2010): Principles and big ideas of science education. The Association for Science ducation. College Lane, Hatfield, Herts.
Howes, E. V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93(2), 189-217.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2005). Technology literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Koballa, T., Kemp, A., & Evans, R.(1997). The spectrum of scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 64(7), 27-31.
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: he classification of educational goals. Handbook 11: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative Approachto Content Validity, Personnel Psychology. 28, 564-575.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific Literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff , M. (2002). Introduction. In H. A. ,Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications(pp.2-12). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the Design and Implementation of a Scientific Literacy Approach in School Science, International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499-1521.
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1971). NSTA position statement on school science education for the 70's. The Science Teacher, 38, 46- 51.
National Research Council (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practice, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States (NGSS). (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noll, V. H., Scannell, D. P., & Craig, R. C. (1979). Introduction to Educational Measurement. (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2015).Draft science Framewor . Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J., Colins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Researh in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4 (3), 199-208.
Pierce, C. (2012). The Promissory Future(s) of Education:Rethinking scientific literacy in the era of biocapitalism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(7), 721-745.
Purzer, S., Moore, T., Baker, D., & Berland, L. (2014). Supporting the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through research: Engineering. Retrieved from https://narst.org/ngsspapers/engineering.cfm
Ramaley, J. A., Olds, B. M., & Earle, J. (2005). Becoming a Learning Organization: New Directions in Science Education Research at the National Science Foundation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (2), 173-189.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth W. M. (2007). Toward a dialectical notion and praxis of scientific literacy, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 377-398.
Schmidt, R. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.
Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). Basel: S. Karger.
Shwartz, Y. Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’, International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 323-344.
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21.
Williams, P. L., & Webb, C. (1994). The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(1), 180-186.
Yore, L. D. (2012). Science Literacy for All: More than a Slogan, Logo, or Rally Flag! In K.C.D. Tan and M. Kim (eds.), Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward (pp.5-23). DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_2.