本研究以三個社會性科學議題做為教學素材，探討兩組國中學生分別經過和未經過論證寫作，在科學本質觀的差異。研究結果發現實驗組學生（145人）實施論證寫作後，在「了解科學本質量表」的得分顯著高於對照組學生（111人）。
實驗組學生進行論證寫作時，學習單的框架包含五個面向：「自己對於議題的立場」、「依據何種理由支持或反對議題」、「理由背後的證據」、「他人可能的反駁」、「自己對他人反駁的再反駁」。學生在議題二、三的論證完整度顯著高於議題一。尤其是學業成就高分組和中分組學生能提出「反駁、「再反駁」的人數增加了，而低分組學生在三個議題的論證能力則沒有顯著差異。
學生支持或反對議題的理由大致可區分為依賴直覺、依賴情感、依賴理性三種，其中多數的理由是依賴情感或理性，只有少數理由依賴直覺。學生在論證的過程中使論證品質降低的原因如下：未提出證據、提出的證據和理由無關、誇大證據的效力、無法察覺他人可能的反駁、無法針對他人的反駁提出再反駁。

This study investigated how argument writing on socioscientific issues (SSI) contributed to the understanding of nature of science among junior high school students. For this purpose, the teaching materials were 3 SSI curriculums. The students of experimental group (N=145) implemented the argument writing, but the students of control group (N=111) did not. The results revealed that the students of experimental group gained higher score in the “Understanding Nature of Science Questionnaire” than the students of control group. (p< .05)
Learning sheets for the students of experimental group included five dimensions of argument writing: the claims in SSI, the reasons for supporting or objecting to SSI, the evidences for the reasons, counter-arguments from others, and the rebuttals to against the counter-arguments. The students appeared elaborate argumentation on the 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. High academic level students and middle academic level students proposed more valid “counter-arguments” and “rebuttals” in 2nd and 3rd SSI than in the 1st SSI. However, there were no significant differences in the quality of low academic level students’ argumentation in these 3 SSI.
Students supporting or objecting to the SSI by offering warrants of rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive forms. Their warrants often relied on emotions and rationalities, few relied on intuition. Some students’ common mistakes reduced the quality of arguments. These mistakes included the following reasons: some students didn’t show any data to support their claims, some students’ data cannot correspond to their warrants, and some students exaggerate the data. Furthermore, some students cannot perceive other students’ counter-arguments, or they cannot make rebuttals to against counter arguments.

王郁文（2003）科學探索活動及高層次思考對國中生科學素養影響之探究～以【生物科技大未來】為活動設計主題。國立中山大學生物科學系在職專班碩士論文。
王鼎銘（2001）爭議性科技議題對九年一貫科技教育的啟示。生活科技教育，九十年十二月號，34(12)，2-11
吳秀錦（2001）人類胚胎研究的倫理課題。應用倫理研究通訊第18期，22-29
吳靜宜（2008）國小社會性科學議題教學之研究—台灣能源的開發與利用。國立台中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學在職進修專班碩士論文
林采薇（2008）國小社會性科學議題教學研究—地球暖化議題為例。國立台中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系碩士論文
林陳涌（1996）「了解科學本質量表」之發展與效化。科學教育學刊，4(1)，1-58
林樹聲（2004）通識素養的培育與爭議性科學議題的教學。南華通識教育研究，第二期，25-37
胡芳禎（2008）國小高年級社會性科學議題教學成效之研究—以「土石流發生」教學模組為例。國立台中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系在職進修專班碩士論文
胡務亮（2004）遺傳疾病與基因篩檢。科學發展，378期，28-33
美國能源部(2008)人類基因組計畫-倫理、法律與社會議題http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml
約翰‧哈里斯（2006）複製、基因與不朽—基因革命的反思。（蔡甫昌、張至寧、林逢祺、曾瑾珮、林芝宇、朱怡康譯）台北：桂冠。（原著出版年：1998年）
徐佐銘（2001）醫療、倫理與政治的角力：人類幹細胞研究的論戰。應用倫理研究通訊第18期，30-36
翁秀玉、段曉林（1997）科學本質在科學教育上的啟示與作法。科學教育月刊，201，2-15
陳宜中（2002）胚胎幹細胞研究的倫理爭議。科學發展，354期，4-11
陳瑤華（2001）人類胚胎幹細胞研究的道德爭議。應用倫理研究通訊第18期，37-40
張文貞（2004）基因篩檢的挑戰，科學發展，378期，12-21
張昇平（2001）胚胎實驗道德倫理與應用。應用倫理研究通訊第18期，5-10
張春興（2007）教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐(二版)。台北:東華
黃柏鴻（2007）提升國小六年級學生論證能力之行動研究—以社會性科學議題為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文
黃柏鴻、林樹聲（2007）論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，302，5-20
程台生、洪秀鈴、許惠菁、蔡孜怡、黃東賢（2003）。基因改造生物教學模組發展歷程的省思。載於陳文典（主編），科學課程論文彙編，365-388，台北市：國立台灣師範大學。
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, 第十卷第一期，59-86
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，第十五卷第三期，335-356
AAAS科學素養指標（2008年新版線上）：
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?home=true
Albe, V. (2008) When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1–12.
Bal, S., Samancι, N. K., & Bozkurt, O. (2007) University students’ knowledge and attitude about genetic engineering. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 119-126
Chen, S. Y. & Raffan, J. (1999) Biotechnology: student’s knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 17-23
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
Dawson, V. (2007) An exploration of high school (12-17 year old) students’ understanding of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37, 59-73
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003).Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 57 – 69.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312
Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003) Teaching biotechnology through case studies- Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767-793
Ellis, R. A., Taylor, C. E. & Drury, H. (2005). Evaluating writing instruction through an investigation of students’ experiences of learning through writing. Instructional Science, 33, 49–71
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915– 933
Erduran, S., Osborne, J., Simon, S. (2005) The role of argumentation in developing science literacy. Research and the Quality of Science Education, 381—394.
Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Netherlands: Springer.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Lopez-Rdriguez, R., & Erduran, S. (2005, April). Aguementative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.
Kolstφ, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
Kolstφ, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS scenario study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as agurment: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Lee, M. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.
Martin, A. M. & Hand, B (2007) Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1) ,17-38
Means, M. L. & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
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? , 87-101. New York: Routledge.
Norris, S. & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 947-967
Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong and H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and quality of the science education. (pp.367-380). The Netherlands: Springer.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–102
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decisionmaking on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754
Phoenix, D. A. (2000). The Science of the millennium. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 115-116
Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
Reis, P. & Galvão, C. (2009) Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: A case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education. 13(1), 1-24
Roussey, J. & Gombert, A. (1996). Improving argumentative writing skills: Effect of two types of aids. Argumentation, 10, 283-300
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–53
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott B. (2007) What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Res Sci Educ, 37, 371-391
Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations 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
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construral and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Apply genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L.(2005) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51-80.
Solomon, J. (1991). Group discuss in the classroom. School Science Review, 72, 29-34
Tal, T. & Kedmi, Y.(2006) Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances. Cult Scie Edu, 1, 615–644
Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about SSI through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410
Wessel, M. R. (1980). Science and conscience. New York: Columbia University Press.
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, 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
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62