本研究以台北市某公立高中數理資優班的高一學生為對象，在「化學專題研究課程」中，
選擇「水溶液」、「色素」及「界面活性劑」三個主題發展STS (science-technology-society)
教學模組，從模組學習中引導學生深入探討化學的學科內涵，寓學習於真實情境中。藉由合
作學習，讓學生從建構科學概念的理解、精熟基本實驗操作技能及科學過程技能的過程中，
培養從事基礎科學研究的能力。
為了評量此課程設計的教學成效，本研究採用「歷程檔案」作為主要的評量工具，收集
學生在教室內學習的表現，透過這些資料，教師可以看出學生在化學專題研究課程的成長與
改變，並藉此探討在數理實驗班化學課程中實施多元化評量的可行性。
研究結果顯示歷程檔案評量可以從各種角度去瞭解學生學習的情形，掌握學生由多樣化
的學習方式所呈現之多元智能表現。藉由適當的課程及評量設計可引導學生對自己的學習成
果負責，並且讓學生更主動地參與評量的過程。
將STS 理念融入化學專題研究課程，有助於提升高中數理資優班化學專題研究課程的教
學效能，開發完成的STS 模組能提供有關教學人員應用於實際教學上，對於國內基礎科學研
究人才的培育應能發揮實質的效益。

This research on incorporation STS in chemical education is studied. The curriculum
design for chemistry thesis in senior high school was based on three STS
(Science-Technology-Society) modules -“aqueous solution＂, “pigments＂ and
“surfactants＂. Students are chosen from mathematics and science talented students
in 10th grade of a senior high school in Taipei. These STS modules lead students to
do research on chemistry and incorporate chemistry learning in real life. Based on
collaborative work, students developed better understanding of conceptual
domain-specific knowledge and master the skills of experimental and scientific
process . These learning experiences allow students to build up their abilities on
independent research.
The portfolio assessment is developed to investigate the performances of students
on research in chemistry. Students will understand that it is their responsibility
to learn and play a more active role in a well-designed curriculum and assessment.
In addition, the curriculum designed for thesis in chemistry is based on STS modules
and can be used to assist the promotion on teaching effect for mathematics and science
talented students at senior high school.

中文部分
王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯和張淑慧合著(1999)：教育測驗與評量－教室學
習觀點。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
王澄霞(1995)：STS 活動之學與教。科學教育學刊, 3, 115-137。
王澄霞和林梅芬(1994)：開發溫室效應STS 單元。第十屆科學教育研討會。台灣師
範大學。
王澄霞和蔡曉信(1993)：設計開發STS 模組之模式。第九屆科教研討會論文彙編,
590-616。
王澄霞，游佩琪(1994)：油炸後的食用油該如何處理。化學, 52, 335-342。
江文慈(1997)：整合與超越：多元智力取向的評量。測驗與輔導, 143, 2952-2954。
江雪齡(1995)：教師成效的依據－教學檔案的建立。成人教育雙月刊, 24, 41-44。
江雪齡(1998)：介紹檔案評量法。中等教育, 49, 4, 79-84。
何縕琪(1997)：卷宗評量法在教學上之應用。測驗與輔導, 143, 2957-2959。
吳璧純(1999)：科學-技術-社會(STS)的道德與公民課程。教育研究集刊, 42, 79-95。
吳璧純(2001)：科學-技術-社會(STS)教育思潮及教學取向。教育研究月刊, 92, 69-76。
吳璧純和甘漢銧(2000)：自然科學STS 教學研究。國科會專案, 編號：NSC
89-2511-S-005A-001。
吳毓瑩(1995)：開放教室中開放的評量：從學習單與檢核表的省思談卷宗評量。載
於國立台北師範學院(主編), 開放社會中教學, 93-100。台北：國立台北師範學
院。
辛慶偉(1998)：國小自然科卷宗評量建構效度之探究。國立台北師範學院國民教育
研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
洪志明(1998)：聯結於生活的化學實驗安全STS 模組之開發。師大學報, 43, 1, 19-25。
洪志明和蔡曉信(2001)：以「化學尋寶」實驗活動培養學生解決問題的能力。科學教育月刊, 244, 22-27。
周立勳(1994)：國小班級分組合作學習之研究。臺北市：國立政治大學博士論文。
施婉菁(1999)：卷宗評量中師生觀點的展露－以國小自然科為例。國立台北師範學
院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
教育部(1984)：特殊教育法。台北市：教育部。
教育部(1995)：普通高級中學課程標準。台北市：教育部。
教育部(1998)：國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北市：教育部。
教育部(2004)：高中化學課程暫行綱要。台北市：教育部。
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。
郭靜姿(1996)：資賦優異學生的鑑定與教育安置？教育資料集刊, 21, 27-54。
郭靜姿(1998)：誰適合加速？資優教育季刊, 66, 1-12。
黃政傑和林佩璇(1996)：合作學習。台北市, 五南圖書公司。
陳昭錦和林燊均(2002)：以STS 理念發展高中數理實驗班化學課程教學方案。教育
部九十一年度中小學專案計畫。
梁源(2003)：學習歷程檔案於國一資優生自然科教學之應用及與後設認知關聯之探
討。台北市：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
張美玉(1996)：歷程檔案在建構教學之應用：一個科學的實徵研究。教學科技與媒
體, 27, 31-46。
張美玉(2000)：歷程檔案評量的理念與實施。科學教育月刊, 27, 31-46。
張振成(1997)：教學評量的新趨勢：實作評量與檔案評量, 中等教育, 48, 6, 90-94。
曾政清(1999)：專題研究課程的設計與探究。建中學報, 5, 197-222。
郭生玉(1985)：心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
賴羿容(2001)：學習成長檔在高職化學課程實施成效之研究。台北市：國立台灣師
範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
盧玉玲和連啟瑞(1997)：STS 教學模組開發模式之建立及其實際教學成效評估。科學教育學刊, 5, 2, 219-243。
盧玉玲和連啟瑞(2001, 11 月)：S(KPL)S 模式的教學與評量網路資源之建構研究。
論文發表於STS 科學教育研討會。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會科教處。
鄒慧英(2000)：多元化的檔案評量。國教之友, 52, 1, 16-23。
魏明通(1994)：各國STS 課程教材評介, 科學教育月刊, 171。
鄭湧涇(1988)：適合高中科學才賦優異學生的教學方案。資優教育季刊, 27, 1-6。
蘇育任(2001, 11 月)：九年一貫自然與生活科技課程融入STS 理念的研究。論文發
表於STS 科學教育研討會。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會科教處。
英文部分
Adams, D. (1991). Writing portfolio： A powerful assessment and conversation tool.
Writing teachers, 12-15.
Aikenhead G. S. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J.Solomon & G.Aikenhead
(eds.), STS Education ：International perspectives on reform, ch5.pp.47~59.NY. ：
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Arter, J. A. (1992). Portfolio in practice ： what is portfolio? Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association( San Francisco,
CA)
Arter, J. A. & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and
assessment. Educational Measurement ： Issues and Practices, 11, 1, 36-44.
Bybee, R. W. &Mau,T. (1986).Science and technology related global problems. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 599-618.
Calfree, R. & Perfums, P. (1996). Writing portfolio in the classroom. Mahwah, New
Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Camp, R. (1993). The place of portfolios in our changing views of writing assessment. In
R.E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement ： Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio
assessment. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Campbell, Jo.(1996) .Electronic Portfolios： A Five-Year History. Computers and
Composition. 13(2), 185-94.
Campione, Joseph C.;Brown,Ann L.(1978). Toward a Theory of Intelligence:
Contributions from Research with retarded children. Intelligence. 3, 279-304.
Cheek, D.W.(1992).Thinking constructively about science, technology, and society
education. NY. State University of New York Press.
Cheek, D.W.(1994).Trends and dilemmas in science, technology, and society education
within K-12 schools in the United States ED.381429.
Chi, T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1982). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Cobb, Paul. (1994). Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on
Mathematical Development. Educational Researcher； v23 n7 p13-20.
Cole, D. J., Ryan, C. W., & Kick, F. (1995). Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond.
California： Corwin Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship： Teaching
the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick(Ed.), Knowing,
learning, 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.
Duffy,T. M.&Jonassen,D. H.(1991).Constructivism：New implication for instructional
technology. Educational Technology, May, 7-12.
Freedman, S. W. (1993). Linking large-scale testing and classroom portfolio assessment
of student writing. Educational Assessment, 1, 27-52.
Gardner, H. (1992). The unschooled mind. NY： Basic Books.
Graham,C. S.(1986). STS in middle/junior high school science： One state’s response.
S-STS reporter, 2, 1-4.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Heath,P. A.(1992).Orangizing for STS teaching and learning：The doing of STS. Theory
into Practice,16,52-58.
Huang,W.(1997).The study of fostering in-service STS teacher in elementary
science.STS. 科學教育研討會.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L. B.(1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfree(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York：
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Harms, N. (1980) . The report of project synthesis. NSF. Ed.216885.
Jarcho,I. S.(1985).Curricular approaches to teaching STS：a report on Units, Modules and
Courses. In R. W. Bybee(Ed.).Science-Technology-Society,1985 Yearbook.
Washington, D. C.：National Science Teachers Association.pp.162-175.
Jenkins, C. B. (1996). Inside the writing portfolio ： what we need to know to assess
children’s writing. Portmouth, NH： Heinemann.
Jochum, J., Curranm, C., & Reetz, L. (1998). Creating individual educational portfolio in
written language. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 3, 283-306.
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research： Cooperative learning in the
science classroom, Science and Children, 24(2), 31-33.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). Learning together and alone ： Cooperative,competitive, and individualistic learning. (4th Ed.), Boston： Allyn & Bacon.
Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio
assessment programs： Findings and implications. Educational Measurement： Issues
and Practice, 13, 5-16.
Kumar,D. D.&Altschuld,J. W.(2000).Science, Technology and Society ： Policy
implications. Bulletin of Science,Technology&Society,20,133~138.
Lerner, R. M.(1991). Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of
development： A developmental contextual perspective. Developmental psychology,
27, 27-32.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B.(1991). Complex performance-based
assessment： Expectations and validations criteria. Educational researcher, 20, 5-21.
Lutz,M. (1996).The congruency of the STS approach and constructivism. In R.E. Yager
(ed.). Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education. pp. 39~49.NY.：
State University of New York.
Marsh,D. D.(Ed.)(1999).1999 ASCD Yearbook ：Preparing our schools for the 21st
century. Alexandria, VA： Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McDaniel, E. & Lawrence, C. (1990). “Levels of cognitive complexity”. An approach to
the measurement of thinking. Spring Verlag, New York.
Matthews M. R.(Ed.)(1998).Constructivism in Science Education ： A Philosophical
Debate.(99-112). Kluwer Academic.
Mayer, Richard E.(1992), Cognition and Instruction： Their Historic Meeting within
Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 4 , 405-412.
Marzano, R. (1992). Dimensions of learning. Association for supervision and curriculum
development. VA, USA.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.), New
York： Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1992). Validity of test interpretation and use. In M. C. Alkin. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., Vol.4, pp.1487-1495), New York：
Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment： Validation of inferences from
persons responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning.
American Psychologist, 50, 9,741-749.
Moss, P. A., and Others. (1992). Portfolios, accountability, and an interpretive approach
to validity. Educational measurement ： Issues and practice, 11, 12-21.
NSTA(1982). Science-Technology-Society ：Science Education for the 1980s. Position
paper, National Science Teachers Association. Washington, D. C.
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., (1994). A guide for judging portfolios. Portland：
Measurement and Experimental Research Program of the Multnomah Education
Service District.
Paulson, F. L. , Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio?
Educational leadership, 48, 60-63.
Phelps, Laporte, and Mahood(1997). Portfolio assessment in high school chemistry： one
teacher’s guidelines. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 5, 345-350.
Piel,E.T. (1993).Decision-Making ：A goal of STS,in Yager,R.E.(Ed.)What Research
Says to the Science Teacher,Vol.7,p.147.Washington,D.C.：NSTA.
Ramsey, J. (1989).Curricular framework for community-based STS issue instruction.
Education and urban society ： issue-based education, 22,40~53.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement：Implications for social
Responsibility. Science Education, 77, 235~258.
Roy, R. (1993). STS-I and STS-D ：Disciplinary and interdisplinary STS. Bulletin of
Science, Technology & Society,13,247-250.
Rubba, P. A.(1987).Recommended competencies for STS Education in Grades 7-12, The High School Journal,70,145~150.
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.
Sia, A., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986). Selected predictors of responsible
environmental behavior： Ananalysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2),
31-40.
Simmons, Warren； Resnick, Lauren. (1993). Assessment as the Catalyst of School
Reform. Educational Leadership； v50 n5 p11-15 Feb 1993. 1993
Solomon,J. & Aikenhead,G. (eds.)(1994). STS education ：International perspectives on
reform. NY：Teachers Colloge, Columbia University.
Sowell, Evelyn J. , and others(1990). Identification and Description of Mathematically
Gifted Students: A Review of Empirical Research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4),
147-54.
Stomfay-Stitz, A. M.(1992). Robotics： STS curriculum strands integrated with language
arts and Social studies for middle/secondary students. Bulletin of Science,
Technology &Society, 12, 304-315.
Their,H. & Nagle,B. (1994).Developing a model for issue-oriented sience. In J.Solomon,
J. & Aikenhead,G.(eds.).STS education ：International perspectives on reform ,
pp.75-83. NY：Teachers Colloge, Columbia University.
Tombari, M., & Borich, G. (1999). Authentic assessment in the classroom ： Applications
and practice. Pretice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P.(1963). Toward the more humane education of gifted children. Gifted
Child Quarterly. 7, 135-145.
Valencia, S. W., & Calfee, R.C. (1991). The development and use of literacy portfolios
for students, classes, and teachers. Applied Educational Measurement, 4,333-345.
Vantassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Thinking and speech. In the collected works of L. S. Vol 1.
Problems of general psychology. (N. Minick, Trans.). New York： Plenum Press.
Waks,L. J.(1989).The responsibility cycle.In National STS Network-STS leadership
Resources. University Park, PA：National STS Network. The Pennsylvania state
university.
Waks, L. J. (1992). The responsibility Spiral： A curriculum Framework for STS
education. Theory into Practice, Vol xxxI, No.1,pp.13-19.
Waks,L. J. ,& Prakash, M. S.(1985).STS education and its three steps-sisters. Bulletin of
Science, Technology,&Society,5,105-116.
Wang, C. H. (1998). Cultivating Capabilities of Teachers in Promoting Student
Creativity： Designing STS Exploratory Experiment. Proceedings of National
Science Council, Part D, 8(1), 45-53.
Yager,R. E.(1984). The major crisis in science education. School Science Mathematics,
84(3), 189-197.
Yager,R. E.(1988).Keying instruction to current events brings life to the classroom.
American School Board Journal,175,37&45.
Yager,R. E.(1991).The constructivist learning model： Toward real reform in science
education. The Science Teacher, 58,52-57.
Yager,R. E.(1992).The constructivist learning model ：a must for STS classrooms. ICASE
Yearbook,14-17.
Yager,R. E.(1996).History of Science/Technology/Society as reform in the United States
In R.E.Yager(Ed.) Science/Technology/Society as reform in Science
education.pp.3-15.NY.：State University of New York.
Yager, R. E. and McCormack A. J. (1989). Assessing teaching/learning success in multiple domains of science and science education. Science Education. 73(1), 45-58.
Ziman,J.(1994).The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In J. Solomon, &G.
Aikenhead, (eds.) STS education ：International perspectives on reform ,pp.21-31.
NY：Teachers College, Columbia University Teaching and learning about science and
society. London：Cambridge University Press.