本研究探討連結生態系環境因素與生物特徵對大學以上學生學習生態系相 關內容之影響。研究過程中，受試者需進行先備知識檢測、連結任務、引導教學與分類任務，並在過程中不斷思考生物特徵與生態系環境因素之間的連結。30 位受試者在先備知識檢測與特徵紀錄筆記中推理生物特徵與生態系環境因素之間的連結並發想沙漠、雨林、凍原生態系的生物特徵;在分類任務中，提供受試 者一對生物的特徵，希望受試者以特徵與生態系環境因素連結作為分類依據，將生物分類至適合生存的生態系。資料分析中以受試者「對生物特徵與生態系環境 因素連結的掌握程度」作為主軸，對先備知識檢測、分類任務與特徵紀錄筆記進行評分，將受試者的回答先依照有無推理做區分，再依照推理是否合理給予 3 分或 2 分;若受試者僅能依照印象或先備知識說出生物特徵而無推理則得 1 分; 無回答或回答錯誤則得 0 分。
研究結果顯示，整體受試者在先備知識檢測時的回答多集中於無推理的 1 分，而經過連結任務與引導教學後，分類任務回答與統整筆記得分分佈則集中於 3 分。顯示經過本研究設計的教學後，多數受試者都能從只能說出生物特徵無法 推理連結，進步到不僅能說出特徵也能成功推理出特徵與生態系環境因素間的連 結。另外分析分類任務中，錯誤分類生態系的受試者，這些受試者雖然能夠推理出合理的特徵與生態系環境因素連結，但因為生物相關知識不足以及無法考慮整 體生態系對同一生物不同特徵的影響，因此造成受試者即使推理出合理連結，依舊錯誤分類生態系。

This study explored the strategy of connecting ecological factors with biological features and its influence on students’ conceptual learning about ecosystems. During the experiment, students were required to constantly thinking about the connection between biological features and ecological factors in prior knowledge test, connecting tasks, guiding teaching and classifying tasks. In the prior knowledge test and feature notes, 30 students reasoned about the connection between biological features and ecological factors for creatures in desert, rainforest, and tundra. In the classifying task, students were provided with 6 pairs of creatures and their biological features and were asked to classify each pair of creatures into correct ecosystems based on the connection between biological features and ecological factors. Students’ response in prior knowledge test, connecting task, and classifying tasks were scored according to the “ability of reasoning about connection between biological features and ecological factors.” The responses were first distinguished according to whether there is reasoning, and then 3 or 2 points are given according to whether the reasoning is reasonable; if the student can only describe the features according to the impressions or prior knowledge without reasoning, it will be scored 1 point; finally, 0 points were given for no response or wrong responses.
The results of the study showed that the overall students' responses in the prior knowledge task were mostly concentrated on 1 point, and after the connecting task and guiding teaching, the classifying task and feature notes were more concentrated on 3 points. It was shown that after the teaching designed in this study, most students were able to progress from only giving features but not inferring connections to not only giving features but also successfully inferring the connection between features and ecosystem factors. In addition, the students who misclassified the ecosystem in classifying task were found that although they were able to infer reasonable connection between features and ecosystem factors, they were not able to consider the overall ecosystem's impact on the different characteristics of the same creature due to insufficient biological knowledge and inability to consider effect.

一、中文部分
甘漢銧、陳文典(2005)。「科學過程」技能。載於教育部(主編)，科學素養的內涵與解析(83-110 頁)。臺北市:教育部。
史燕玲(主編)(2021)。選修生物 IV 生態、演化及生物多樣性。臺南市:翰林出版事業股份有限公司。
朱順庭(2021)。Cardboard VR 遊戲式虛擬濕地生態系統對於學生環境教育學習成就與學習動機之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立清華大學，新竹市。
李家維(主編)(2010)。基礎生物(下)。臺北市，龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
汪靜明(2003)。環境教育的生態理念與內涵。環境教育學刊，2，9-46。
林吟珊、洪振方、廖麗貞(2020)。以情境式問卷評量學生像生物學家般思考能力。高雄師大學報，自然科學與科技類，48，23-52。
林洋如與顏瓊芬(2007)。涉入自然的情感:國中自然教師突破負面環境感受之行動研究。環境教育研究，5，131-165。
施河(主編)(2014)。基礎生物(下)。臺南市:南一書局企業股份有限公司。
姚宗威與顏瓊芬(2007)。生物多樣性的敲門磚-生物分類教案設計。科學教育月刊，300，45-57。
胡哲明與潘建源(主編)(2021)。選修生物 IV 生態、演化及生物多樣性。臺南市:南一書局企業股份有限公司。
教育部(2009)。新修訂普通高級中學課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校-自然科學領域。臺北市:教育部。
陳俊宏(主編)(2021)。選修生物 IV 生態、演化及生物多樣性。臺北市，龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
楊冠政(2002)。環境倫理—環境教育的終極目標。環境教育研究，1，1-11。
楊凱悌、邱美虹與王子華(2009)。應用數位影音融入 POE 教學改善國小高年級學童脊椎動物分類另有概念之效益研究。科學教育學刊，5，387-407。
鄭湧涇、林金盾與曾哲明(主編)(2010)。基礎生物(下)。臺北市:康熹文化事業股份有限公司。
二、英文部分
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Bodner, G. M., & Bhattacharyya, G. (2005). A cultural approach to problem
solving. Educación Química, 16(2), 222-229.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How
children learn to observe the biologist’s world.Review of Educational
Research, 79(1), 39-68.
Frøyland, M., Remmen, K. B., & Sørvik, G. O. (2016). Name‐Dropping or
Understanding?: Teaching to Observe Geologically. Science Education, 100(5),
923-951.
Kolodner J. (1993), Case-based reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kraft, A., Strickland, A. M., & Bhattacharyya, G. (2010). Reasonable reasoning:
multi-variate problem-solving in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 11(4), 281-292.
Matthews, M. R., & Matthews, M. R. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook of
research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
McComas, W. F. (2003). The nature of the ideal environmental science curriculum:
Advocates, textbooks, & conclusions (part II of II). The American Biology
Teacher, 171-178.
Reyna, J. (2011). Digital teaching and learning ecosystem (DTLE): a theoretical approach for online learning environments. Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart, 1083-1088.
Remmen, K. B., & Frøyland, M. (2020). Students’ use of observation in geology: towards ‘scientific observation’in rock classification. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 113-132.