本研究係以台北市某高中為例採行動研究方式，探討運用非同步學習系統將ＳＴＳ理念融入基礎物理教學，學生學習興趣與發展統整課程之可行性。
研究方法以質的研究為主，蒐集質性資料包括文獻參考資料、ＳＴＳ課程活動設計、教師教學知能及行為表徵分析、學生參與活動紀錄、學生議題報告書、學習歷程檔案、學生學習成就及問卷等，透過持續的分析詮釋與多重資料來源提昇資料品質與分析結果的客觀性。
本行動研究希望提高學生的知識、學習興趣、開放性思考能力、解決問題之能力，並經由研究的歷程，研究者能透過省思，展現教師專業能力的自我肯定。所用的教學策略包括：1.議題探討；2.腦力激盪；3.討論區運用；4.影片欣賞；5.蒐集資料；6.認知圖；7.參觀訪問報告；8.小組合作學習 。所用的多元評量策略包括：1.參與度；2.議題報告；3.開放性思考；4.同儕評量；5.實作評量。
研究發現與結論如下：
一、STS模式的教學要選擇適當的教學年級。
二、從學生開放式問卷的陳述，將ＳＴＳ理念融入課程並運用網路教學， 學 生有較多的動機願意去學習及探索物理。
三、教師採用多元評量且能提供較多授課時間，學生學習效果更加顯著。
四、課程教材採用彈性多元，學生學習更有收穫。
五、在學校能提供充足的資訊融入教學設備下，學生對新的學習方法表示 強烈意願。
六、非同步學習系統討論區的使用，學生皆能感受「小組合作學習」可讓 學習事半功倍。

An action research is used in the study. The subjects were the students at a senior high school in Taipei. The purpose of study is to explore the students’ learning interesting and the possibility of developing an integrated curriculum based on STS concepts into physics’ instruction in asynchronous learning virtual classroom.
The researcher used qualitative paradigm as a major method. The researcher used qualitative paradigm as a major method. Data are collected from literature analyses, STS curricular designs, teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), participatory observation records, students’ portfolios, learning journals, achievement records and questionnaires, etc. In order to ensure the quality of data colleted and the objectivity of result analyzed, the researcher uses a variety of analysis explication and multiple resources.
The action research was carried out to increase students’ knowledge, learning interesting, open-ended thinking, and problem solving ability. Through the research of this action, the researcher will introspect himself by this track and display self-affirmation about teachers’professional skills.
The activities involved in these modules were:(1) theme discussion; (2) brain-storming; (3) using discussion area; (4) multivision; (5) information survey; (6) cognitive map; (7) information given on factory tours; (8)group cooperative learning.
The assessments used in this study were: (1) degree of participation assessment; (2) theme creativity assessment; (3) open-ended thinking levels assessment; (4) peer assessment on activities; (5) performance assessment.
The findings and conclusions of the study:
(1) The STS pedagogy should be provided for the suitable students.
(2) From the expose of open-ended questionnaire, curriculums based on STS concept and e-learning motivate them to learn and to explore physics.
(3) Multiple assessments adopted appropriately and much more time given for teaching enhanced the effect of students’ learning.
(4) The adoption of multiple and flexible curriculum material developed students’ learning abilities.
(5) Under such sufficiency of computers supplied by school, the students expressed strong attendance toward the new method of learning.
(6) By using discussion area of asynchronous learning virtual classroom, students experienced that they achieved maximum results with little effort through the “group collaborative learning”.

一、 中文部分
王貴春(2000)：STS教學與國小學生創造力及學習態度之研究。臺北市立師範學院。自然科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
王澄霞(1994)：STS活動中之學與教。科學教育學刊, 3(1), 115-137。
王澄霞(1995)：從「科技與社會互動之學習」探究數理教育問題。科學發展月刊，23(5)，433-455。
王澄霞(1996a)：化學領域之STS師資培育課程架構。化學，54(2),103-114。
王澄霞(1996b)：建立STS教師專業能力基準：化學領域。計畫報告, 計畫編號： NCS 84-2511-s-003-094。
王澄霞(1997)：科學教師培育：科學、技學與社會的連結。科學發展月刊，第25(3)，167-174。
王澄霞、游佩琪(1994)：(一)STS單元活動-(1)油炸後的食用油該如何處理?(2)清潔劑 (二) 設計清潔劑STS活動單元。國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
王澄霞、林梅芬(1994)：開發溫室效應STS單元。第十屆科學教育學術研討會論文彙編，37-68。
王澄霞、蔡曉信(1994)：以腳架策略開發STS專業能力的模式。師大學報，39，429-454。
王澄霞、劉奕昇(1995)：開發臭氧層破洞STS單元。師大學報，40，331-363。
王秋華(2000)：網路教學知學生學習行為與學習滿意度及學習績效的關係。大葉大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
尹玫君(1997)：遠距教學理論與文獻之探討。國立台南師範學院初等教育學報，10，21-80。
吳孟修(1998)：經由STS探究實驗設計開發學生之創造力。國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
吳璧純、甘漢銧(2001)：一個小學STS教學模組設計─農藥之多少。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，57-71。
巫靜宜(2000)：比較網路教學與傳統教學對學習效果之研究---以Word2000之教學為例。淡江大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
呂丰君(2001)：非同步網路學習下任務型態與困難度對合作學習績效與滿意度之研究。國立中正大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
李勝富(1999)：美國第一所認可的虛擬大學。美國教育新知選輯，3，23-26。
林明瑞(1994)：STS模式之環境教育研究法。科學教育月刊，204期，24-31。
林梅芬(1995)：透過開發溫室效應STS模組發展STS教師專業能力溫室效應。國立台灣大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林奇賢(1995)：全球資訊網輔助學習系統。http://linbo.ntntc.edu.tw/document/ wwwaided.htm，國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所。
林奇賢(1999)：網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育， 67，34-49。
洪志明、陳穎慧(2001)：「九年一貫」課程與STS模組教學研究。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，121-139。
洪明州(1999)：網路教學，華彩軟體。
徐志彬(1998)：網路非同步教學對學習效果之影響-稅法課程之例。國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
徐慧萍(2000)：國中STS模組開發與教學研究--﹙1﹚除濕劑﹙2﹚保鮮膜。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
孫春在(2000)：網路學習趨勢與原理。2000網路學習理論與實務研討會，13-20。
郭家宏(2000)：STS學習模組之研究開發-「糖」與「紙」。國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
許彩娥(1994)：(一)開發油脂STS活動單元：職前教師，(二)開發油脂STS活動單元及其資料庫。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
連啟瑞、盧玉玲(1999)：STS取向學生問題中心教學之提問策略與成效。STS科學教育研討會(II)論文彙編，65-73。
陳文典(1997)：STS教師所需要之專業準備。科學教育學刊，5(2)，167-189，167-189。
陳文典(1998)：STS理念下之教學，臺灣教育，575，10-19。
陳文典(2000)：由國民中小學課程目標看--「自然與生活科技」學習領域之教學與教材。科學教育月刊，231，40-42。
陳文典、陳華傑(2001)：STS模式的教學對引發學習的功能。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，161-174。
陳振威(2000)：STS教學對學生科學態度之影響。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士(未出版)。
陳昭秀、周倩(1995)：「遠距合作學習的定義、理論與科技使用之初探研究」，第四屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文集，4-11。
陳龍川、壽大衛、劉明洲、林鴻龍(1999)：「網頁課程之適性化學習設計研究」研究計畫報告書，教育部。
張淑君(1999)：國中生物教師進行STS教學活動之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
許榮富(1991)：從科學、技學與社會的整合談科學教育的未來發展。教師天地，52，24-31。
莊奇勳、洪信德(1999)：國小STS課程發展模式之探討—以保特瓶火箭為例。STS科學教育研討會(II)論文彙編。18-22。
莊奇勳和王嘉田(1997)：國小自然科STS教學摩組織探討：豆漿製作。國民教育研究學報，3，75-98。
彭森明(1996)：實作評量。教育資料與研究，9，國立教育資料館。
黃萬居(1999)：國小STS教學與創造力培養之研究。STS科學教育研討會﹙II﹚論文彙編，37-45。
黃繡梅(2000)：透過STS模組教學培育學生知能及創造力(一)食品添加劑(二)色素，國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
黃福坤(1999)：國中理化STS教學的初嘗經驗。STS科學教育研討會論文彙編, 國立臺灣師範大學物理學系，145-152。
黃福坤、蘇文義、鄭茹芬、陳智源(2001)：國中STS教學活動的設計與教學成效。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，149-160。
黃鴻博(1997)：影響教師實施STS教學活動因素之研究。科學教育與研究，7，4-13
黃鴻博(1998)：在國民小學實施STS教育之合作行動研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
資策會(1999)：「專科以上學校開辦遠距教學作業要點」，http://www.edu.tw/ rules/index.htm，台北，教育部。
楊雅玲(2000)：STS模式的教學對學生學習成效之影響，國立臺灣師範大學物理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
楊振嘉(2000)：鷹架理論在國小酸鹼化學網站的應用研究。靜宜大學應用化學系碩士論文(未出版)。
廖學專 林秋斌 陳德懷(2000)：“全民學校”之協同教學與合作學習機制。國立中央大學資訊工程所。大學學術追求卓越計劃“學習科技-主動社會學習及其應用，從台灣到全世界”，編號89-H-FA07-1-4。
劉蓁蓁(1998)：國小實施遠距教學的教學方法、學習策略以及互動之個案研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
鄭淑玲(1997)：開發STS模組--「植物色素」與「天然清潔劑」。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
鄭可偉(2001)：STS教學對國小學生科學本質觀與學習動機之研究。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，27-37。
盧玉玲(2000)：以社會文化觀點應用S(KPL)S模式於國小職前STS教師培育的成效。科學教育學刊2000，8(1)，77-100。
歐用生(1996)：教師專業成長。台北：師大書苑。
蔡曉信(1994)：(一)應用電腦有效教導化學實驗技能:薄層層析法 (二)用解析結構法提昇教師對STS的看法:清潔劑。國立臺灣師範大學化學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
蔡今中(1999)：科學教師實際實施STS教學所感：一個案研究。國立彰化師範大學「中華民國第十五屆科學教育學術研討會」短篇論文彙編。
魏明通(1994a)：各國STS課程教材評介﹙一﹚----英國SIS及SISCO計畫。科學教育月刊，168，2-19。
魏明通(1994b)：各國STS課程教材評介﹙二﹚----英國SATIS計畫。科學教育月刊，169，12-20。
謝昭賢(2000)：以合作行動研究發展STS教師專業能力。國立台灣師範大學化學研究所博士論文(未出版)。
蘇宏仁(1996)：科教課程模式---科學、技學、社會﹙STS﹚之探討研究。科學教育月刊，190，2-12。
蘇宏仁(1997)：美國科學教育的改革:回顧、前瞻與借鏡，科學教育，200，2-11。
蘇育任(1998)：我國科學教育改革的新動向，國民教育研究集刊，6，21-45。
蘇育任(1999)：運用STS模組學習活動以促進國小學生的創造思考能力。STS科學教育研討會﹙II﹚論文彙編，55-61。
蘇育任(2001)：九年一貫自然與生活科技課程融入STS理念之研究。STS科學教育研討會(III)論文彙編，17-25。
二、 英文部分
AAAS. (1994). Project 2061 Update 1994.America Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.
Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to Learning Science Through STS :A Research Perspective. In J. Solomon. & G. Aikenhead (Eds). STS Education-International Perspectives on Reform (pp169-186). New York ： Columbia University.
Ajeyalemi, D. A. (1993). Teacher Strategies Used by Exemplary STS Teachers. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), The Science, Technology, Society Movement. (49-52). Washington, DC： NSTA.
Alavi, M., Bradley C. Wheeler, Joseph S. (1995). “Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning, ” MIS Quarterly, 293-311.
Andriole, S.J. (1995). Asynchronous education and training networks: Lessons learned well and in progress.
Anthony R. Kaye, (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in a Multi-Media Distance Education Environment, Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, New York: Springer-Verlag, 125-143.
Arnaudin, M. W., Mintzes, J.J., Dunn, C.S. & Shafer, T.H. (1984). Concept mapping in college science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 14(2), 117-121.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Skies, J., & Snapp, M., (1978). The Jigsaw classroom, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications.
Bar-Lavie, B. Z. (1988). Enhancing meaningful learning in an environmental education program: a case study of a class empowered through the use of Novak's and Gowin's principles of learning how to learn, concept mapping, interviewing, and educating. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(10), 2590-A.
Barreau D., Eslinger D., McGoff K., and Tonnesen C. (1999). Group collaboration in the virtual classroom: An evaluation of collaborative learning in the virtual classroom of CMSC 828S and the technology that supports it, Journal of Virtual Experience. 1993. Available at: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/research/knowledge_base/virtual-worlds/JOVE/index.html.
Bassi, L., S. (1998). Cheney and E. Lewis, Trends in Workplace Learning: Supply and Demand in Interesting Times, Training & Development 52(11), 51-77.
Batey,A.&Cowell,R.N. (1986). “Distance education: An overview. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 278 519).
Beare, P. L. (1989). “The comparative effectiveness of videotape, audiotape, and telelecture in delivering continuing teacher education,” American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 57-66.
Beyerbach, B. A. (1986). Concept mapping as an approach to assessment of students' representation of structural knowledge. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(9), 2622-A.
Berlin,D.F., & Kumar,D.(1993).The status of STS implementation in the United States and it’s implication.ED.361186
Bork, D. (1986). Advantages of Computer-based Learning, Journal of Structural Learning, 9(1), 63-76.
Brown, A. (1992). The cognitive basis of school restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Burger, K. (1996). The networked classroom, Insurance &Technology, 21 (11), 68-69.
Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory andpractice of teaching for transfer. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 37(3), 5-38.
Champagne, A. B., Lonitts, B. E., & Calinger, B. J.(Eds.) (1990). This year in school Science 1989 Scientific literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cheek, D. W. (1994). Trends and dilemmas in science, technology and society education within k-12 schools in the United States. In D. W. Cheek (Ed.), Proceedings of national technological literacy conference (pp. 190-200). ERIC Document No. ED 381429.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Congitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.Resnick(Ed.), Knowing, learing, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 453-494.
Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments. Educational Technology, May 13-17.
Cuseo, J. B. (1992). Cooperative learning vs. small-group discussions and group projects: The critical differences, Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(3), 4-9.
Cutcliffe, S.H.(1989)The emergence of STS as an academic program. Research in Philosophy and Techonology.9, 287-301.
Dede, C. (1996). Distance Learning –Distributed learning: Making the Transformation Learning and Leading With Technology, The ISTE Journal of Educational Technology Practice and Policy, 23(7), 25-30.
Fullick, P. (1992). Addressing science and technology issues in the United Kingdom: the SATIS project. Theory into Practice, 31 (1), 36-43.
Garrison, D. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Rutledge
Garrison, D. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 13-24.
Gifford L.J. (1998). Graduate students' perceptions of time spent in taking a course by Internet versus taking a course in a regular classroom. Paper presented at: Annual Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference; New Orleans, LA, November 4-6.
Guernsey L. (1998). Distance education for the not-so-distant. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(3), 29-30.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning online: Issue in computer-mediated graduate courses, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16, 117-135.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Harms, N. C. (1977). Project synthesis: An interpretative consolidation of research identifying needs in natural science education. (A proposal prepared for the National Science Foundation). Boulder, Co.:University of Colorado.
Henri, F. (1995). Distance learning and computer-mediated communication: Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, New York: Springer-Verlag,145-161.
Henri, F. (1988). Distance Education and Computer-assisted Communication, Prospects, 18(1), 85-90.
Heath, P. A. (1992). Organizing for STS teaching and learning： The doing of STS. Theory into practice, Vol. Xxx1, No. 1. Winter 1992,52-57.
Hein, G. (1990). The assessment of band-on elementary science programs. Grand Forks, ND: Center for Teaching & Learning, University of North Dakota.
Hickman, F. M. (1987) Science/ Technology/ Society: A framework for curriculum reform in secondary school science and social studies. ERIC Document No. ED 288783.
Hiltz S.R. (1999). Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: some preliminary results, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. August 1998,1(2).
Holman, J. (1986). Science and Technology in Society, General guide for Teachers. Hatfield, Herts. Association for Science Education.
Hyerle, D. O. (1996). Thinking Maps: Seeing is Understanding. Educational Leadership, Jan., 85-89.
Jarcho, I. S. (1985). S/T/S in practice: Five ways in work. Curriculum Review, 24(3), 17-20.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Joseph Holland, J.D. (2000). The University of Wisconsin-Stout Asynchronous Learning Network Case Study Options: Using Technology to Remove Learning Barriers, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4, 2.
Keegan, D. (1986). “Problems in defining the field of distance education,” The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 4-11.
Kellerman L.R. and Liu C.T.(1996)：Enhacing Student and Teacher Understanding the Nature of Science Via STS，Yager,R.E. ed.，Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education，State University of New York Press，139-148。
Koch J. V. (1999). How women actually perform in distance education, Chronicle of Higher Education.1998;45(3),60. Available from: Periodical Abstracts via OCLC FirstSearch.
Lumpe, A.T., Haney J.J., & Czerniak, C.M. (1998). Science teacher belief and intentions to implement Science-Technology-Society (STS) in the classroom.Journal of science teacher education, 9(1), 1-24.
Markow, P. G. & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of Concept Maps in College Chemistry Laboratories: Students' Perceptions and Effects on Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015-1029.
Mastrian K.G., McGonigle D. (1997). Older student perceptions of technology based learning assignments, On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics [serial online].1997;1(2):no pagination. Available at http://cac.psu.edu/~dxm12/percep2.html Accessed April 21, 2000.
Mayadas, F. (1994). Asynchronous learning networks: Alfred P. Sloan foundation’s program in learning outside the classroom, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), September 1.
Mayadas, F. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan foundation perspective, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 1-14.
McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in A situated learning environment. Educational
Technology, XXXIII, 3, 39-45.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a system view, California: Wadsworth.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept Mapping : An Useful Tool for Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
NSTA (1990). Science/ Technology/ Society： A new effort for providing appropriate science for all. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), The Science technology, society movement. (3-5). Washington, DC： NSTA.
Olson, E. & Iskandar, S. (1996). Enhancement of Opportunities for Low-Ability Students with STS. In Yager, R. E.(Ed.) Science/technology/society as reform in science education. New York: State University of New York.
Pedretti, E., & Hodson, D. (1995). From Rhetoric to Action-Implementing STS Education through Action Reeseaarch. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 463-486.
Peter, M. A. & Harvey, F. S. (1993). Processor reconfiguration through instruction-set metamorphosis. IEEE Computer, 26(3),11-18.
Pines, A. L., & West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual Understanding and Science Learning: An interpretion of research within A source of knowleage ramework. Seience Education, 70(5), 583-604.
Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using Concept Maps to Assess Student Learning in the Science Classroom: Must Different Methods Compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
Richards C. N., Ridley D. R. (1999). Factors affecting college students' persistence in on-line computer-managed instruction, College Student Journal. December 1997:490-5. Available from: WilsonSelect through OCLC FirstSearch.
Roby,R.K.(1981).Origins and Significance of the science, technology ,and society movement. The Australian Science Teachers Jourmal,27(2),7-12.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, April, 26-33.
Robinson, W. R. (1999). Aview from the Science Education Research Literature: Concept Map Assessment of Classroom Learning. J. Chem. Edu, 76(9), 1179.
Rosen, W. G. (1989). High-School Biology today and tomorrow. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rosenberg, M.J. (1995, October 9). Reengineering education and training: The strategic role of technology.
Rubba, P.A.(1993).An examination of views about Science-Technology-Society interaction among college students in general education physics and STS courses.Paper pressnted at the Annual Meeting of National Associatio for Research in Science Teaching(Atlanta, GA, April 15-19)(ERIC Document Repriduction Service No.ED 362 394)
Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn, and academic achievement. In S. Sharan.(Ed.), Cooperative learning, (pp.1-22). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Solomon, J.(1993). Teaching Science Technology and Society. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Solomon, J.(1994). Knowledge, Values, and the Public Choice of Scientific Knoweldge. In Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). STS education: International perspectives on reform. 99-110. New York: Teacher's College.
Stuart, H. A. (1985). Should concept maps be scored numerically? European Journal of Science Education, 7, 3-8.
Waks, L. J., & Barchi, B. A. (1992). STS in U.S. school science： perceptions of selected leaders and their implications for STS education. Science education, 76(1), 79-90.
Wang, C. H. (1994). A model for Teacher Enhancement Through Instructional Research in STS Unit Development. Educational Technology Research. 17, 45-54, 日本教育工學會, 日本, 東京。
Westera, W. Sloep, P. (1998). The Virtual Company: Toward A Self-Directed, Competence-Based Learning Environment in Distance Education, in Educational Technology, Vol. 38 (1), 1998, pp 32-38.
Winn, W. D. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or Partnership﹖Educational Technology, 33(3),16-21.
Yager, R. E. (1984). Defining the Discipline of Science Education, Science Education, 68(1), 35-37.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model：Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Yager, R. E. (1992a). Viewpoint： What we did not learn from the 60's about science curriculum reform. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 29(8), 905-910.
Yager, R. E. (1992b). The constructivist learning model： a must for STS classroom. CASE Yearbook, 14-17.
Yager, R. E. (1993). Science- Technology- Society As Reform. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 145-151.
Yager, R.E. & Pinchas Tamir(1993). STS Approach: Reasons, Intentions, Accomplishments, and Outcomes. Science Education, 77(6), 637-658.
Yager, R. E. & Roy, R. (1993). STS： Most Pervasive and Most Radical of Reform Approaches to Science Education. In R. E. Yager (Ed). The Science, Technology, Society Movement. Washington, DC：NSTA.7-13.
Yager,R.E.(1996)：An STS Approach Accomplishes Greater Career Awareness, Yager,R.E. ed., Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State University of New York Press, 149-159.
Ziman, J.(1994). The Rationale of STS Education is in the Approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhaed (Eds.), STS Education-International Perspectives on Reform, Columbia University of New York, 21-31.