本研究旨在瞭解十二年國教自然科課綱前、後高中生物教科書中科學史內容的差異。本研究以內容分析法分析不同課綱所編輯的高中生物教科書之科學史內容，研究樣本為兩個版本不同課綱之高中生物教科書，分析面向包含科學史內容篇幅、科學史內容特性與質性個案三個部分，其中內容篇幅以生物科學史在教科書中所占的數量與百分比計算；教科書中與生物科學史相關內容的呈現特色則以量化檢核表進行分析；質性個案研究則探討教科書中「拉馬克與達爾文兩人演化理論」相關內容的呈現情形。研究發現新課綱教科書之科學史內容篇幅有增加的趨勢，且將更多的科學史內容定位為基本教材，意即所有學生都必修研讀，此外，新課綱教科書所設計之科學史相關學習活動亦更具多樣性。而在個案研究的部分則發現，某一版新課綱教科書在圖說的部分能明確指出長頸鹿的例子是後人按照拉馬克與達爾文的理論所做的詮釋，若以「歷史資訊詮釋的合理性」而言是重要的修正指標；另一版新課綱教科書則在書中將演化理論的發展脈絡作更完整的呈現，為拉馬克建立起有別於過往被有意無意遭受貶抑的科學家形象。最後針對上述結論，提出建議以提供後續研究者與教科書編寫者參考。

The purpose of this study is to compare the contents about the history of science (HOS) in high school biology textbooks edited under different guidelines. Content analysis is the method utilized to examine the content of the HOS in high school biology textbooks which are edited under Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education (the newest guidelines) and the Newly Revised High School Curriculum Guidelines (99 Guidelines). The analysis consists of quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative analysis of different versions of textbook includes the amount of words and diagrams of the HOS materials by using the "Content Analysis Table of the History of Biological Sciences" to explore the presentation of the HOS. The qualitative analysis aims to explore the presentation of the evolutionary concepts in textbooks. Results show that the textbooks edited under the newest guidelines have the tendency of increasing the quantity of HOS and have more historical content which is considered fundamental materials for students’ learning. In addition, the type of the learning activities dealing with history of science were more diverse in textbooks edited under the newest guidelines. Furthermore, when using the giraffe example to interpret Lamarck’s theory and Darwin’s theory, textbooks edited under the newest guidelines treated the evidence and theories in a more appropriate way. Especially, one of the textbooks edited under the newest guidelines presents the evolutionary concepts more completely. Some suggestions for future textbooks compilation are given at the end.

一、中文文獻
呂紹海（2006）。國小自然與生活科技教科書中科學史內容的分析研究。國立新竹師範學院自然科學教育學系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
呂紹海、巫俊明（2008）。國小「自然與生活科技」教科書中科學史內容之分析。新竹教育大學教育學報，25（2），1-31。
巫俊明（2002）。運用科學史增進學生對於科學本質的了解。國教世紀，199， 61-68。
周珮儀（2005）。我國教科書研究的分析：1979-2004。課程與教育季刊，8（4），91-116。
周珮儀、鄭明長（2008）。教科書研究方法論之探究。課程與教學季刊，11（1），193-222。
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（2001）。科學史融入中學科學教科書的問題和討論。科學教育研究:理論與實務，1，1-24。
姚珩、孫治平、李秉書（2016）。力學能守恒理論形成的歷史探究及其在科學史融入教學上的意義。科學教育學刊，24（4），379-416。
洪振方（1998）。科學教學的另類選擇︰融入科學史的教學，屏師教學教育，7，2-10。
教育部（1996）。高級中學課程標準。台北。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要─「自然與生活科技學習領域」。
教育部（2005）。高級中學課程標準。台北。
教育部（2013）。普通高級中學課程綱要，臺北市:教育部。
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，臺北市:教育部。
莊雪芳（主編）（2016）。普通高級中學基礎生物下冊。全華圖書股份有限公司。新北市。
許瀞尹（2015）。歷史人物影片應用於高中電腦科學史教學（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育所碩士論文，台北市。
陳俊宏（主編）（2019）。普通型高級中學生物（全一冊）。龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。新北市。
陳恒安（2004）。從生命科學發展史看生物學與生物技術。南華通識教育研究。
陳恒安（2009）。20世紀後半葉台灣演化學普及知識的思維樣式。台北市:記憶工程股份有限公司。
陳秋燕（2009）。高中電腦教科書科學史內容分析研究。未出版碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育所碩士論文，台北市。
陳淑媛、洪振方（1998）。科學史融入基礎理化教學之行動研究。Chinese Physics，2（1），15-44。
傅麗玉（1996）。科學史與台灣中等科學教育之整合─問題與建議。化學教育面面觀，165 -193頁。台灣師大中等教育輔導委員會，1996。
傅麗玉（1999）。科學家的「不當行為」故事在中等學校教育的價值與意義。科學教育學刊，7（3），281—298。
傅麗玉（2001）。兒童科技史：台灣兒童讀物中科技史材料之研究。科學教育學刊，9（4），417-434。
楊榮祥、鄭湧涇與林金盾（主編）（2001）。生命科學教科書（上）。大同資訊企業股份有限公司。臺中市。
楊榮祥、鄭湧涇與林金盾（主編）（2001）。生命科學教科書（下）。大同資訊企業股份有限公司。臺中市。
趙大衛、蘇懿生（主編）（2019）。普通型高級中等學校自然科學領域生物（全一冊）。翰林出版事業股份有限公司。臺南市。
劉虹谷（2016）。高中物理教科書科學史內容分析。國立東華大學課程設計與潛能開發學系科學教育碩士班碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。
歐用生（1994）︰內容分析法。載於黃光雄、簡茂發主編︰教育研究法，229-254。台北︰師大書苑。
潘菁瑩（2010）。國中自然與生活科技教科書中科學史內容分析之研究。國立新竹師範學院自然科學教育學系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
二、英文文獻
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56, 1891–1901.
Bergman, J. 2002. The giraffe’s neck: another icon of evolution falls. TJ 16(1):120-127.
Bhakthavatsalam, S. (2019). The value of false theories in science education. Science & Education, 28(1-2), 5-23.
Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Brush, S. G.(1989). History of science & science education. Interchange, 20(2), 60-70.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130.
Chang, H. (2011). How historical experiments can improve scientific knowledge and science education: The cases of boiling water and electrochemistry. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 317–341.
Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics: Text students. In D Gentner &A. Stevens(eds), Mental Models. (pp.325-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. Yale University Press, NewHaven.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129
Foster C. (2012). Creationism as a misconception: socio‐cognitive conflict in the teaching of evolution. International Journal of Science Education,34(14),2171– 2180.
Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdéz, P. & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as “Applied Science”: A Serious Misconception that Reinforces Distorted and Impoverished Views of Science. Science & Education, 14, 309-320.
Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and socio-cultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 99(1), 1-38.
Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of science, Mathematics and Technology Education,6(3), 293-311.
Hong, H. Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists' struggles influences students' interest and learning in physics. Journal of educational psychology, 104(2), 469.
Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: an analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3-4), 293-316.
Klein, M. (1972). Use and abuse of historical teaching in teaching physics. In Brush, S. & King, A. (Eds.). History in the Teaching of Physics. University Press of New England, Hanover.
Leite, L. (2002). History of science in science education: development and validation of a checklist for analysing the historical content of science textbooks, Science & Education, 11, 333-359.
Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good and bad science in US schools. Nature, 407(6802), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1038/35030204
Lin, C.-Y., Cheng, J.-H., & Chang, W.-H. (2010). Making science vivid: Using a historical episodes map. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2521-2531.
Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.
Lochhead, J. & Dufresne, R. (1989). Helping students understand difficult science concepts through the use of dialogues with history. History and philosophy of science in science education (Proceedings of the First International Conference), 221–229.
Ma, Y., & Wan, Y. (2017). History of science content analysis of Chinese science textbooks from the perspective of acculturation. Science & Education, 26(6), 669-690.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Metz, D., & Stinner, A. (2006). A role for historical experiments: capturing the spirit of the itinerant lecturers of the 18th century. Science & Education, 16, 613–624.
Mitchell, S. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity and policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, G., Roberts, D., Sittert, S. V., & Skinner, J. D. (2013). Growth patterns and masses of the heads and necks of male and female giraffes. Journal of Zoology, 290(1), 49-57. doi:10.1111/jzo.12013
Mitchell, G., Sittert, S. V., Roberts, D., & Mitchell, D. (2017). Body surface area and thermoregulation in giraffes. Journal of Arid Environments, 145, 35-42.
Moore, R., & Cotner, S. (2009). The creationist down the hall: Does it matter when teachers teach creationism? BioScience, 59(5), 429–435.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Nelson CE, Nickels MK, Beard J. (1998). The nature of science as a foundation for teaching science: Evolution as a case study. Pages 315–328 in McComas W, ed. The Nature of Science in Science Education. Amsterdam: Kluwer Adademic.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states, Appendix H—Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Padian K.( 2013). Correcting some common misrepresentations of evolution in textbooks and the media. Evolution: Education and Outreach ,6(1),11.
Pérez, J. E., Alfonsi, C., & Salazar, S. K. (2015). Some misleading concepts and interpretations in evolutionary biology. Interciencia, 40(9), 644-647.
Taber, K. S., & Akpan, B. (Eds.). (2016). Science education: An international course companion. Springer.
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H.(1993). Using historical vignettes as a teaching tool. The Science Teacher, Sep., 18-21.
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting people back into science: using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 95(7), 365-370.
Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: on the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069-1089.
Rutherford, F. J., Holton, G., & Watson, F. G. (1970). The Project Physics Course:Text. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rutherford, F. J. (2001). Fostering the history of science in American science education. Science & Education, 10, 569-580.
Sanchez, D., & Valcarcel, M. V. (1999). Science teachers’ views and practices in planning for teaching. Journal of Research in Science Education, 36, 493-513.
Simmons, R. E., & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning by a neck: sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148(5), 771-786.
Steiner, R. (1976). Humanizing chemistry through its history. School Science and Mathematics, 76(1), 33-40.
Stinner, A., & Williams, H. (1993). Conceptual change, history, and science stories. Interchange, 24(1-2), 87-103.
Wang, H. A., & Marsh, D. D. (2002). Science instruction with a humanistic twist: teachers’ perception and practice in using the history of science in their classroom. Science & Education,11, 169-89.
Wolfensberger, B., & Canella, C. (2015). Cooperative learning about nature of science with a case from the history of science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(6), 865-889.