本研究目的在於瞭解國小學童，面對科學相關的社會問題時，所作的決定之形成類型，及其決定理由與分析數據兩者間的關係類型。本研究採用質性研究，研究對象為台南市某國小六年級某班的四十名學生，研究者製作三份不同主題、類型的作業單，由該班全體學生填寫，蒐集後並根據紮根理論中的開放編碼與主軸編碼等來進行資料分析。本研究主要結果如下：
一、本研究將學生的決定類型予以具體化的分類，除在其他參考文獻可見的「補償型」、「排除型」外，另再新增兩種基本型──「擇優型」、「替代型」以及四種混合型──「補償-排除型」、「補償-擇優型」、「排除-擇優型」、「擇優-替代型」決定類型，共計八種類型。
二、學生的各種決定類型中，「補償型」及「擇優型」佔大部份的頻次，其餘類型的頻次數量佔較少部份。
三、某一學生進行作業單時，以同時採用兩種至四種決定類型的人數最多，只採用一種或同時採用多達五、六種決定類型的人數很少。
四、分析學生進行決定時的理由與分析數據之關係，共獲得四種類型，分別為「理由與數據一致」、「理由與數據不一致」、「理由與數據評價相反」、以及「分析無該選項」等四種類型；其中「理由與數據一致」與「理由與數據不一致」類型兩項的頻次佔了本研究中的大部份頻次。
依本研究結果，提出對於教學與未來研究上的建議：教學方面，在學習評量的教材設計時，應將學生不同的決定類型列為重要的參考；教學活動時，需考量學生的決定理由和分析數據間，所可能出現的多樣關係，故教學中應安排適當的教學活動予以澄清或說明。而未來研究方面，針對學生偏好的決定形成類型與該生的背景變項間的相關性來加以探討。

The purposes of this study are to understand how elementary school pupils make their decisions for the socio-scientific problems, and to explore the relation between the reasons and the data of a decision made by pupils. The qualitative researching method was used in this study. The subjects were 40 students in the six grade of an elementary school in Tainan. Three worksheets with different topics and types were designed by the author in order to collect the decision-making types of the subjects. After the subjects completed the worksheets, the worksheets became the protocols of this study for the further coding analysis. The findings of this study are:
1. Eight types of decision making were found in this study, i.e. compensating, excluding, prioritizing, replacing, compensating-excluding, compensating-prioritizing, excluding-prioritizing, and prioritizing-replacing. Among the eight types, only two types that are compensating and excluding has been reported in the literature.
2. Most pupils used the types of compensating and prioritizing when they made decisions. Other types of decision making were seldom used by pupils.
3. Most students used 2~4 types of decision making to form a given decision.
4. Four types of relationship between the reasons and the data of a decision made were found, i.e. consistence, inconsistence, opposite, and no corresponding data.
Based on the findings of this study, the recommendations for teaching and the further researches are suggested. The teachers should consider the diverse types of the pupils’ decision making when they design teaching activities. The explanation and clarification are necessary in the teaching activities of the socio-scientific problems.

中文摘要………………………………………………………………………Ⅰ
英文摘要………………………………………………………………………Ⅱ
誌謝……………………………………………………………………………Ⅲ
目次……………………………………………………………………………Ⅴ
表次……………………………………………………………………………Ⅶ
圖次……………………………………………………………………………Ⅷ

第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究動機………………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題…………………………………………… 3
第三節 研究範圍與限制………………………………………………… 4
第四節 名詞釋義………………………………………………………… 5

第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………… 6
第一節 決定形成在科學教育上的意涵………………………………… 6
第二節 決定形成的過程的標準模式…………………………………… 8
第三節 決定形成的行為架構……………………………………………10
第四節 教學策略與學生決定形成之關係………………………………12
第五節 討論與決定形成的關係…………………………………………14
第六節 決定形成能力的影響因素………………………………………18

第三章 研究方法……………………………………………………… 20
第一節 研究流程…………………………………………………………20
第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………………22
第三節 研究工具…………………………………………………………23
第四節 資料收集及分析…………………………………………………26
第五節 研究的確信性……………………………………………………30

第四章 結果與討論…………………………………………………… 31
第一節 作業單施測………………………………………………………31
第二節 決定類型…………………………………………………………33
第三節 各決定類型的比較及出現頻次…………………………………42
第四節 決定理由與分析數據之關係……………………………………45
第五節 本研究新增「擇優型」、「替代型」決定類型及其混合型之必
要性………………………………………………………………48
第六節 本研究結果與文獻的比較………………………………………49

第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………… 52
第一節 結論………………………………………………………………52
第二節 建議………………………………………………………………54

參考書目…………………………………………………………………… 56
英文部份……………………………………………………………………56

附錄………………………………………………………………………… 59
附錄一 早餐包裝作業單…………………………………………………59
附錄二 游泳池規劃作業單………………………………………………63
附錄三 水蜜桃包裝作業單………………………………………………65

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.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Toronto, Canada: Wiley.

Alro, H. and Skovsmose, O. (1996). Students’ good reasons. For the learning of Mathematics, 16, 31-38.

Baron, J., Granato, L., Spranca, M., and Teubal, E. (1993). Decision-making biases in children and early adolescents: Exploratory studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 22-46.

Beyth-Marom, R., Fischoff, B., Jacobs Q. M., and Furby, L. (1991). Teaching decision-making to adolescents: A critical review. In J. Baron and R. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp.19-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davidson, D. and Hundson, J. (1988) The effect of reversibility and decision importance on children’s decision making. Journal of experimental child psychology 46, 35-40.



de Jager, H., and van der Loo, F. (1990). Decision making in environmental education: Notes from research in the Dutch nme-vo project. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 33-42.

Dreyfus, A., and Jungwirth, E. (1980). A comparison of the ”prompting effect” of out of school with that of in-school contexts on certain aspects of critical thinking. European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 301-310.

Driver, R., and Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.

Frey, D. and Rosch, M. (1984) Informaion seeking after decisions－The roles of novelty of information and decision reversibility. Personality and social psychology bulletin 10, 91-98.

Frey, D. (1984). Reversible and irreversible decisions：Preference for consonant information as a funcation of attractiveness of decision alternatives. Personality and social psychology bulletin 7, 621-626.

Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N.-K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students’ decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in Science Education, 34, 97–111.

Nielsen, L., Patronis, T. and Skovsmose, O. (1996). Connecting concers in Europe：A Greek-Danish project in mathematics education (Copenhagen：The Royal Danish School of Education Studies)

Klein, J. (1999). The relationship between level of academic education and reversible and irreversible processes of probability decision-making. Higher Education, 37, 323-339.
Kortland, J. (1992). Environmental education: sustainable development and decision-making. In R. Yager (Ed.), The status of STS reform efforts around the world ICASE year book (pp. 32-39). Petersfield, UK: ICASE.

Patronis, T., Potari, & Spiliotopoulou (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745– 754.

Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235-258.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.

Simon, A. M. and Blume, W, G. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom：A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 15, 3-31.

Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a Philosophy of Critical Mathematics Education.(Dordrecht：Kluwer Acadmic).

Sternberg, R.G. (1985). Beyond IQ：A triarchic theory of human intelligence. London：Cambridge University.