基於相關實徵研究的缺乏和自身的教學需求，歷來與決策能力有關的教學建議中，並無教學形式的相關著墨。因此，本研究擬探討結構式、引導式探究教學法在學生以新興科技資料重新評估地震避難所之社會性科學議題情境下，其決策能力（辨識兩難考量、形成判準、進行權衡、自評決策）發展之影響，還有介入後學生對於教學內容的觀感。因此，本研究採準實驗研究法，研究對象的總數有145位高一學生，扣除未完成所有研究工具者其有效人數為129位，參與結構式探究教學法（結構組）的學生有64位、引導式探究教學法（引導組）的學生有65位，正式教學介入的時間為120分鐘。資料收集的部分包含：學生的決策能力測驗（前測、後測）、學習單和回饋單。資料分析部分先以內容分析進行編碼，將學生的開放性答案轉化微量化資料，再使用無母數統計分析進行考驗。結果顯示：（一）整體而言，結構組、引導組學生在辨識兩難考量、形成判準、進行權衡，皆有顯著成長（結構組p<0.01、<0.001、<0.001；引導組p<0.05、<0.001、<0.001）。進一步探討不同決策能力者的進步情況發現，中、低決策能力者有明顯的進步情況，而且結構式探究教學法更適合低決策能力者發展決策能力；過度、低度自覺決策者，在兩種教學介入後也更能精準地評估自我的決策歷程。（二）學生認為教學介入中的決策學習活動其難易度為適中，所依據的理由包含資料分析的情況、理解學習內容的情況、文字表達的功力等。然後，學生認為學習單中不同教學指導語（步驟說明、引導問題）能幫助決策能力之學習，所依據的原因主要是這兩種指導語皆可以釐清思考的方向。基於上述實徵資料的分析結果，結構式、引導式探究教學法皆能提升學生辨識兩難考量、形成判準、進行權衡的表現，而結構式探究教學法又更適合低決策能力者發展決策能力。本研究期望能協助教師擬培養學生決策能力時，在社會性科學議題情境下，使用結構式、引導式探究教學法對於學生決策能力發展的情況，能有更具體的認識與建議。

Due to the demand from teaching experience and the lack of empirical support, this study examined the effect of structured inquiry instruction and guided inquiry instruction on students’ decision-making skills in socioscientific issues context. Therefore, the purpose here was to investigate how students identified dilemmas, formulated criteria, made trade-offs, and evaluated decisions before and after these two inquiry instruction. The study adopted quasi-experimental research design. A total of 145 tenth grade students participated in this study. Data sources included students’ artifacts – pretest, posttest, learning sheets, and feedbacks. Content analysis was adopted to analyze students’ decision-making skills with their pre-and-post tests, learning sheets. The results revealed that (1) all students in both structured-inquiry condition and guided-inquiry condition showed significant improvement in identifying dilemmas, formulating criteria, and making trade-offs. In addition, middle-level and low-level decision makers have made progress, and students who over-evaluated and low-evaluated the quality of their decisions have became good at evaluating their decision-making process as well. Moreover, low-level decision makers benefited more in structured-inquiry condition. (2) Based on students’ feedbacks, there were several reasons for how students felt about the degree of difficulty of the decision-making activity and the degree of usefulness of the instructional guidance. With these research findings, this study concluded that students’ decision-making skills of identifying dilemmas, formulating criteria, and making trade-offs improved during structured and guided inquiry instruction. Furthermore, this empirical study suggests that low-level decision makers will benefit more from structured inquiry instruction. Therefore, it is hoped that this study might contribute to the understanding of different inquiry instruction for teaching students decision making.

中文參考文獻

王保進（民104）。中文視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。臺北: 心理出版社股份有限公司。
吳心楷、宋曜廷、簡馨瑩（民99）。錄影分析在教育研究應用。科學教育研究期刊，55（4），1-37。
吳佳蓉（民103）。探討在網路科學探究平台社會性科學議題決策活動中國中生決策能力的表現。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林清山（民103）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：臺灣東華書局股份有限公司。
林樹聲（民97）。科學教室中的社會性科學議題之教學。教師之友，49（4），2-6。
教育部（民103）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市。
陳俊榮（民102）。國小教師將社會性科學議題融入科學教學之行動研究。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系暑期在職進修專班碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。

英文參考文獻

Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206. doi: 10.1080/09500690902991805
Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS in science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730690403
Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision‐making theories as tools for interpreting student behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 189-203. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260302
Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision‐making theories as tools for interpreting student behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 189-203. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260302
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching? What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1023/A:10151711249
82
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 479-506. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0
Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Progression in complexity: contextualizing sustainable marine resources management in a 10th grade classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9254-1
Burek, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2015). Seeing the forest for the trees! Conservation and activism through socioscientific issues. In M. P. Mueller, & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), EcoJustice, citizen science and youth activism (Vol. 1, pp. 425-441). Springer International Publishing.
Bybee, R.W., Harms, N., Ward, B., & Yager, R. (1980). Science, society, and science education. Science Education, 64(3), 377-395. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730640312
Cannard, K. (2005). Embracing controversy in the classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 14.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (Vol. 2, pp. 515-544). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121-127.
Dewey, J. (1916). Method in science teaching. General Science Quarterly, 1(1), 3-9. doi:10.1002/sce.3730010101
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. London, United Kingdom: Open Unerversity Press.
Edelson, C. D., Tarnoff, A., Schwille, K., Bruozas, M., & Switzer, A. (2006). Learning to make systematic decisions. The Science Teacher, 73(4), 40–45.
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision‐making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. doi: 10.1002/sce.20358
Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students' learning outcomes. Education Research International, 1-12.
Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision‐Making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570. doi: 10.1080/09500690701744595
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169. doi: 10.1080/09500690210134848
Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student Decision-Making about a Globally Familiar Socioscientific Issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855-1874. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1054000
Grünig, R., & Kühn. R. (2005). Decision-making procedures. In R. Grünig, & R. Kühn (Eds.), Successful decision-making (pp.39-60). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicization of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71-98. doi: 10.1080/09659759400201
04
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670. doi: 10.1080/0950069
0305021
Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151. doi: 10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h00
57123
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 903-926. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
Klaczynski, P. A., & Cottrell, J. M. (2004). A dual-process approach to cognitive development: The case of children’s understanding of sunk cost decisions, Thinking & Reasoning, 10(2), 147-174. doi: 10.1080/13546780442000042
Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664. doi: 10.1080/095006900289714
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)
80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2010). Students' reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: Bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156-165. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216
Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross‐context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. doi: 10.1002/sce.21021
Levy Nahum, T., Ben‐Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES‐oriented science education promote 10th‐grade students’ decision-making capability?. International Journal of Science Education,32(10), 1315-1336. doi: 10.
1080/09500690903042533
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. doi: 10.1002/sce.20422
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2010). Guest editorial: Reexamining inquiry pedagogy in the science classroom. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 1-4.
McComas, M., & Wood, L. (2014). Inquiry Instruction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education (pp. 52-54). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision‐making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630. doi:10.1002/sce.
21016
Payne, J. W., Bettmann, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230. doi: 10.1080/0950069970191007
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues‐based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
Pokras, S. (1994). Team problem solving. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190203
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Oxford 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/03
057260802681839
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4
Sadler, T. D., & Donelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. doi: 10.1080/09500690600708717
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues - development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291-2313. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.920550
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Jersey, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Siribunnam, S., Nuangchalerm, P., & Jansawang, N. (2014). Socio-scientific decision making in the science classroom. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5(4), 1777-1782.
Solomon, S. (Ed.). (2007). Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67. doi: 10.1080/09500791003628187
Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: A university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311-2333. doi: 10.1080/09500690903501736
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univesity Press.
Wen-Xin Zhang, Ying-Shao Hsu, Hsin-Kai Wu, Che-Yu Kuo, Tsung-hau Jen (2015, August). The effect of metacognition on student inquiry abilities in a simulation-based assessment system. Paper session presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Finland.
Wheeler, L., & Bell, R. (2012). Open-ended inquiry: Practical ways of implementing inquiry in the chemistry classroom. The Science Teacher, 79(6), 32.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187. doi: 10.1080/09500690601083375
Xun, G. E., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. doi: 10.1007/BF02504836
Yager, R.E. (1984). Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education, 68(1), 35-37. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730680107
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. (Vol. 2, pp.697-726). New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. doi: 10.1007/BF03173684
Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler, (Ed.), Socio- scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. (pp. 277-305). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_16
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. doi: 10.1002/tea.20281
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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T. J., ... Hsu, J. Y. (2015). Improving children’s competence as decision makers contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 1-30. doi: 10.3102/0002831215618663