本研究旨在探討社會性科學議題導向的課程中，11年級高中生的小組互動情形及其對學生在社會性科學與永續性推理（socioscientific and sustainability reasoning，簡稱S3R）模式下，社會性科學推理能力的影響。研究對象為我國11年級高中學生，以便利取樣的方式，選取中部一所合作高中的兩班社會組學生為研究樣本，有效樣本數87人。研究採混合式的實驗研究法，輔以單組前、後測設計，檢視施以社會性科學議題「氣候變遷海岸防護大作戰」的課程成效、學生在該課程中展現的小組互動模式，並探討這些小組互動模式如何影響學生S3R的學習。收集的研究資料有：學生的前、後測、個人學習單、小組討論錄音錄影檔。透過推論性統計與內容分析方法，研究結果顯示全體學生在進行SSI導向課程後，其S3R並無顯著差異，t(86) = -0.548，p>0.05。而不同先備S3R對學生的學習成效沒有影響，F(2)=1.577，p>0.05。另外，在探討課程中不同小組互動模式對學生S3R之學習成效的影響上，結果發現就算高層次的小組互動模式也不一定能促進學生之S3R，而是要看討論內容之深度；而小組互動模式中的「破碎型互動」，無與他人有明顯互動的學生之S3R也仍有機會受到提升。

This study aims to explore the influence of the SSI-based curriculum on students’ group interactions and their socioscientific reasoning (SSR). Eighty-seven 11th-grade students who were from middle Taiwan participated in this case study. The case study supplemented with a one group pre-and post-test design was conducted to examine the effect of SSI-based curriculum on students’ SSR, the types of students’ group interaction demonstrated in this curriculum, and how these types of group interactions influenced students’ SSR in a SSI context. The inferential statistic and content analysis were adopted to analyze students’ responses in the pre- and post-test, the individuals’ worksheets, and the video and audio recording of students’ interactive behaviors and verbal discourses. The results indicated that all students didn’t have significant differences on their SSR (t=-0.548, p>0.05) after the SSI-based curriculum. However, students' who had different prior SSR had no significant differences on learning effectiveness, F (2) = 1.577, p >0.05. Moreover, considering to the effect of different group interactions to students’ SSR, we found that even high-level group interactions does not necessarily promote students’ SSR, but depends on the depth of the discussion content, while in the “broken interaction” of the group interactions, students’ SSR without obvious interaction with others still has a chance to be improved.

中文部分
李建億. (2006). 網際網路專題學習互動歷程之研究. 科學教育學刊, 14(1), 101-120.
林樹聲. (2004a). 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. 國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎 (二), 453-465.
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補助專題研究計畫成果報告 (計畫編號: NSC 92-2511-S-415-003).
林樹聲. (2008). 科學教室中的社會性科學議題之教學. 教師之友, 49(4), 2-6.
張文馨. (2018). 探討高中生在社會性科學議題決策課程中非形式推理能力、小組協作調整行為與決策方法的關係. 國立臺灣師範大學 (2018年)
靳知勤. (2002). “有素養” 或 “無素養”?-解讀非科學主修大學生對三項全球性環境問題之敘述表徵. 科學教育學刊, 10(1), 59-86. doi:10.6173/CJSE
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. [Scientific Epistemological View and Decision-making on Socioscientific Issues]. 科學教育學刊, 15(3), 335-356. doi:10.6173/cjse.2007.1503.03
顏瓊芬, & 黃世傑. (2003). 學生在開放式科學探究過程中互動模式之研究. 科學教育學刊, 11(2), 141-169.

外文文獻
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
Bybee, R., Carlson, J., & McCormack, A. (1985). NSTA yearbook: Science/technology/society. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 765-773.
Cannard, K. (2005). Embracing Controversy in the Classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 14-17.
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.
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalisation and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 71-98.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
Jime´ nez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and 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 socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
Legardez, A., & Simonneaux, L. (2006). L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité. Issy-les-Moulineaux: ESF, 110.
Milson, F. (1973). An introduction to group work skill. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London: Taylor & Francis.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 157-165. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.821748
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and Using an S3R Model to Analyze Reasoning in Web-Based Cross-National Exchanges on Sustainability. Science Education, 98(3), 517-542. doi:10.1002/sce.21113
OECD. (2006). International migration outlook: OECD publishing.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Pata, K., & Sarapuu, T. (2001). Application of cooperative learning environment in developing students’ environmental decision-making skills. Paper presented at the EdMedia+ Innovate Learning.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219-239): Springer.
Pedretti, E., & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 463-485.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision‐making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
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. doi:10.1080/09500690600708717
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. doi:10.1002/sce.10101
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy: Rutgers University Press.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, ed.). In: Cambridge, ma: mit Press.
Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244.
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research, and practice. In NG Lederman & SK Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, 2, 697-726.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38): Springer.
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 views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.