臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討六名國小在職教師透過各自發展以社會性科學議題（SSI）為本位，輔以小組合作與讀寫活動之教學模組，並且將此教學模組進行教學，在這整個歷程中，所呈現的專業發展情形。在此研究中，研究者處於觀察者角色，在為期一年八個月的研究期間，透過「省思札記」、「開放性問卷」、「教師訪談」以及「課室教學錄影」的研究資料收集，以建構並詮釋教師專業發展情形。研究結果從「教學設計與實施教學情形」、「在歷程中的專業成長」與「在歷程中的困境與需求」三大方面，加以闡述。文末，本研究係針對上述研究結果，提出建議，以作為相關實務工作者與未來研究參考之用。

This study explored the professional development for six in-service elementary teachers in the instruction of socioscientific issue. Six lesson units were designed and instructed with SSI-based by the case teachers respectively, including the issue of global warming；utilization of energy in Taiwan；development of the Fubow Wetland；the occurrence of the Mudflows and Landslides, and the issue of coming of Panda . The data collected in this study includes classroom videotapes , interviews with the case teachers, the teachers’ journals and their teaching plans. The findings of this study were proposed from three aspects, including teaching design and implementation teaching situation, teacher professional growth , difficult and demand in this course. Finally, based on the research findings, some specific suggestions related to teaching and future research are offered in this research.

目次
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 3
第三節 名詞釋義 4
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 社會性科學議題 7
第二節 教師專業發展 20
第三節 社會性科學議題與教師專業發展相關研究 34
第三章 研究方法 37
第一節 研究對象 37
第二節 研究設計 38
第三節 研究流程 41
第四節 資料收集 44
第五節 資料處理與分析 49
第六節 研究的信度與效度 51
第四章 研究結果 53
第一節 教學設計與實施教學情形 53
第二節 在歷程中的專業成長 115
第三節 在歷程中的困境與需求 170
第五章 結論與建議 183
第一節 結論 183
第二節 建議 185
參考文獻………………………………………………………………189
附錄……………………………………………………………………199
附錄一 各項研究資料的收集 199
附錄二 參與教師所編的教學課程設計各章節內容標題 201
附錄三 訪談大綱 205

參考文獻
一、中文部份
沈翠蓮（1994）：國民小學教師專業發展、教學承諾與學校效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
林志忠（1998）：STS/科技素養教育的歷史發展與現況。中等教育學報，5，129-142。
林樹聲（2003）：重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融入與探討。九年一貫課程理論基礎叢書，493-465。台北：教育部。
林樹聲（2004a）：通識素養的培育與爭議性科技議題的教學。南華通識教育研究，2，25-37。
林樹聲（2004b）：應用學習環策略進行科技引起的社會爭議議題之教學研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告（NSC92-2511-S-415-003）。
林樹聲（2007）：國小資深科學教師的專業改變：以基因改造食品議題之教學為例。科學教育學刊，15（3），241-264。
林樹聲、李田英（1997）：光復後台灣地區國小教師在職教育的演進及其相關問題之探討。趙金祁教授榮退學術研討會論文集：我國科學教育的回顧與前瞻，141-164。台北：國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所。
林韻芳（2004）：一位國小資深自然科教師教導爭議性科技議題之專業改變-以「基因改造食品」為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
姚如芬（2004）：成長團體之「成長」-小學教師數學教學專業之探究。科學教育學刊，14（3），309-331。
姚如芬、郭重吉和柳賢（1999）：從教學研究實作中學習教學-以數學科職前教師為例。科學教育，9，1-20。
段曉林（1996）：學科教學知識對未來師資培育上的啟示。第一屆數理教學及師資培育學術研討會論文彙編，118-143。彰化：國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
教育部（1975）。國民小學課程標準六十四年版。台北市：教育部。
教育部（1993）。國民小學課程標準八十二年版。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（2001）。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
莊奇勳（2001）： STS模組在課程與教學上之應用。邁向課程新紀元（七）九年一貫課程學習領預域研討會論文集，335-349。台北市：中華民國教材研究發展學會。
陳文典（2001）：「生活課程」的特質、功能與設計。九年一貫課程自然與生活科技領域教學示例，23-34。台北：教育部台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
陳慧娟（1998）：科學寫作有效促進概念改變的教學策略。中等教育，49（6），123-131。
陳寶如（2005）：從爭議性科技議題融入教學探討國小自然科教師之專業改變-以「能源選擇」與「水庫興建」為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
郭重吉（1992）：從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，20（5），548-570。
黃鴻博、郭重吉（1999）：STS教育理論的接納與實踐─一個國小教師的個案研究。科學教育學刊，7（1），1-15。
靳知勤（2004）：協助中學數理教師設計STS教學活動之行動研究。科學教育學刊，12（3），341-364。
靳知勤（2007）：科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養-台灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15（6），627-646。
靳知勤、陳又慈（2007）：臺中縣市國小自然科教師對以STS議題從事教學之調查研究。科學教育學刊，15（1），25-52。
靳知勤、楊惟臣（2006）：國小六年級學童對讀寫活動融入自然科教學之知覺研究。科學教育學刊，14（1），29-53。
劉美慧（1998）：議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報，8，173-199。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中（2007）：科學認識觀與社會性科學議題抉擇判斷之相關性探討。科學教育學刊，15（3），335-356。
鄭榮輝、林陳涌（2002）：職前教師對生物倫理教育之意見調查。科學教育學刊，10（3），211-232。
謝明學（2003）：台灣中部地區在職國小教師對爭議性科技議題融入自然與生活科技學習領域之教學意見調查。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
二、英文部份
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What Is STS Science Teaching , In Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds. ), STS Education： International Perspectives on Reform (pp. 47-59). New York：Teachers College Press.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science：An educational perspective. Science and Education, 8, 1-12.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development ： A model from science education. London：Falmer Press.
Briscoe, C. (1996). Teacher as learner: Interpretation from a case study of teacher change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(3), 315-329.
Burden, P. R. (1990). Teacher development. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Secular(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators(pp.311-328).New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M.　(1999). Methods for effective teaching.(pp. 79-103). Boston： Allyn and Bacon.
Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education-social perspectives and personal reflections. New York：Teachers College Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996).Teacher’s Beliefs and knowledge. Handbook of educational psychology. New York：Simon Schuster Macmillan.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (3rd.Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (pp. 255-298), New York：Macmillan.
Clarke, P. (2000). “Teaching Controversial Issue”. Green Teacher, 62, 29-32.
Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G.　Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge （pp.133-144）.Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology, and society education. New York：State University of New York Press.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4) , 263-272.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996).Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333.
Cutler, A. B., & Ruopp, F. N. (1999). From expert to novice-the transformation from teacher to learner. In M. Z. Solomon (Eds.), The diagnostic teacher (pp. 133-161). New York：Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 47(4), 38-44.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education：Implications for practice. teachers college press, Columbia University.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
Duke, D.L. (1990). Teaching：An Introduction .(pp. 258-259). New York：McGraw-Hill. Publishing Company.
Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy?In J. R. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and Culture in Europe (pp. 129-137). London:Science Museum.
Etchberger, M. L. & Shaw, K. L. (1992). Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: A chronology of a developing constructivist teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 411-417.
Evans,R.W. (1997).Teaching social issues：Impleminting an issues-cintered curriculum.In E.W. Ross (Eds),The social studies curriculum：Purposes,problems,and possibilities(pp.197-212).N.Y.：State University of New York Press.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. U. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In Grouws, D.A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). N Y:MacMillan.
Gaff, J. G. (1991). New Life for College Curriculculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11),1191-1200.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Cooperative professional development：Peer-centered options for teacher growth. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 31-35.
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.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Introduction. In A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp.1-19). New York: Teachers College.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentionation an decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’ –pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23( 9), 877-901.
Levidow, L. (1997). Democracy and expertise：The case of biotechnology education. In R Levinsion and J. Thomas (Eds.), Science Today—Problem or crisis？ (pp. 102-106). New York, Routledge.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a Theoretical Framework for Teaching Controversial Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education,28(10), 1201-1224.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Kapitan, R., Carlson, M. O., Kuerbis, P. J., Clark R. C., Nelle, G. M., Sachse, T. P., & Walton, E. (1990). Elementary School Science for the 90s’. Virginia:ASCD.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1990). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA：Corwin Press. INC.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin（Eds.）, International handbook of science education (pp. 667-680). London: Kluwer Academic.
Massials, B. G. (1996). Criteria for issues-centered content selection. In R. W. Evans, & D. W.Saxe, (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 44-50). Washington, DC: National Council for the social studies.
McGinnis, J. R. & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures：A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83, 179-211.
Millar, R. (1997). Science education for democracy：What can the school curriculum achieve? In R Levinson and J. Thomas (Eds.), Science Today—Problem or crisis? (pp. 87-101). New York: Routledge.
Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1991). Teacher’s perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in science teaching, 26(4), 351-369.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards (pp. 55-73)：Washington, DC：National Academy Press.
Onosko,J.J. (1996). Exploring issues with students dispute the barriers. Social Education, 60(1), 22-27.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4) , 411-423.
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), 174-182.
Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33, 89-110.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science education, 77(2), 235-258.
Randi, J., & Carno, L. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In B. J. Biddle et al. (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1163-1211). Netherlands：Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship-Teaching socio-scientific issues .(pp. 1-20). Maidenhead : Open University press.
Rubba, P. A. & Harkness, W. L. (1993). Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers’ beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77(4) , 407-431.
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues：Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
Sadler, T. D. &Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
Sadler, T. D. (2002). Socioscientific issue research and its relevance for science education. Invited seminar presented to science education graduate students at the University of South Florida.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5) , 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms：Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of research in science teaching, 43(4) , 353-376.
Schön, A. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for　 teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 　
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, New York：Rutgers University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, In Moon, B. & Mayes, A. S. (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the secondary school (pp. 125-133). London and New York in association with：The Open University.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning：Theory, research and practice. Edgewoodd Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall.
Speaker, R. B., & Madison, S. G. (1993). Towards a new metaphor in literacy teacher thought processes: Understanding teachers’ spectra of beliefs and the chaos of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National　Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.
Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257-283.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
Tsai, C. C. (2002). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS instruction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86 (1) , 23-41.
Tweney, R. D. (1991). Informal reasoning in science. In J. F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Driel, J. H. , De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590.
Wallace, J., & Loudon, W. (2000). Teachers’ learning: Stories of science education. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.
Wilson, B. G. & Myers, K. M. (2000).’’ Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context’’, In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 57-88). Mahwah, New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Yager, R. E.(1990). STS：Thinking Over the Years. The Science Teacher, 57(3), 52-55.
Yager,R. E.(1991). The constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. State University of New York Press.
Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. V. (1996). Teaching societal issues in school science and mathematics.In R. W. Evans, & D. W. Saxe, (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 247-253). Washington, DC: National Council for thesocial studies.
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.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A.,& Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in view：Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86 (3) , 343-367.
Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge University Press.
Zohar, A., & Nomet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1) , 35-62.