本研究旨在使用5E的教學模式研發一套高一災害課程，並且經由研究者實際進行教學，以期能了解本次課程對於學生學習前後的成就改變。本研究之研究對象為台北市立某高中高一學生共6班230人。研究設計採單一組前、後及延宕測試，經由試題、問卷以及線上動畫測試以期能了解學生在進行災害課程之後，對於災害的知識、情意及技能方面的改變。最後以敘述性統計、t考驗（paired samples t-test）、相關分析（pearson-r ）等統計方法進行量化的分析。主要研究結果顯示：
一、學生經過此次災害課程之後，其知識方面的學習有顯著的進步 (P<0.01，ES=1.04 )。顯示本研究所使用之5E探究式災害課程可以增進學生的災害知識。
二、學生經過此次災害課程之後，其情意方面有顯著的改變 (P<0.01，ES=0.48)。顯示本研究所使用的課程對於學生的情意方面有顯著的增強
三、學生經過此次災害課程之後，其對於滅火器的操作技能有顯著的改變
(P<0.01，ES=0.58)，顯示本研究課程中對於學生操作滅火器的技能有顯著的加強。
四、火災動畫測試時間與分述的資料分析上呈現負相關，可知學生作答的速度
越快分數越高。
五、由問卷即是提資料分析可知，學生對於節能減碳、全球暖化、人為災害等等災害的知識是相當不足的，經由本次災害課程之後，有得到顯著的進步。

This research is to develop a disasters curriculum by using 5E learning-inquiry cycle model and see the changes among students before and after using this model.
Subjects in this study are 230 students in a senior high school in Taipei. Research design used pretest, protest and delay test and conducted disasters curriculum through online animation test, questions and questionnaires in order to help students get the knowledge, attitude and the changes in skills about disasters. Last, a quantitative analysis was made by descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test and person-r analyze. The main results shown in the following:
1.After disasters curriculum, the students made significant process (P<0.01，ES=0.48), which shows that 5E learning-inquiry cycle Model curriculum could increase students’ knowledge for disasters.
2.After disasters curriculum, the attitude among students made significant changes, which shows that this curriculum can enhance the aspect of attitude.
3.After disasters curriculum, students’ skills in using fire extinguisher had significant changes (P<0.01，ES=0.58), which shows that this curriculum can strengthen students’ skills.
4.There was a negative correlation among the time used for fire animation test and the results mentioned above, which shows that the faster the students answered the questions, the higher grades they got.
5.The students’ disaster knowledge for carbon reduction, global warming and technological disaster is insufficient but they made significant progress after disasters curriculum.

一、中文部分
毛松霖、張菊秀（1997）：探究式教學法與講述式教學法對於國中學生地球科學「氣象」單元學習成效的比較。科學教育月刊5(4)。頁461-497。
李坤崇（2010）：高中課程99課綱與95暫綱之分析。教育資料與研究雙月刊
第92期。頁1-24 。
李曉雯（2008）：探討融入多面向概念改變架構理論之五E教材在九年級學生力矩與轉動單元。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所教學碩士班碩士論文。
侯佳典（2008）：5E探究式學習環教學對國二學生浮力概念改變成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所教學碩士班碩士論文。
侯政宏（1996）：探究式教學法與講述式教學法在國中地球科學(太陽視運動)單元中學生 學習成效之比較。國立台灣師範大學地球科學所碩士論文。
洪振方（2004）：探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，641-662
陳裕方、李文德（2005）：5E 建構式學習環教學與一般教學法探究生鏽概念改變成效之研究。科學教育研究與發展，39。頁16-38。
教育部（2006）：教育部九十五年度防災科技教育改進計畫高中人為災害教材。（九十五年度編修版）。
劉湘瑤、于蕙清(2006)：各學習階段學生與中小學教師防災素養調查規劃計畫期末報告定稿。
黃欣玲（2008）：5E探究式教學對國中學生電學學習情境及學習成就影響之研究。國立彰化師範大學物理研究所物理教學碩士班碩士論文。
蘇育男、徐順益（2009）：融入多面向架構之5E教學模式對八年級學生
熱學概念改變與學習動機之研究。數理學科教學知能期刊第1冊。頁45-63。
蔡執仲和段曉林（2005）：探究式實驗教學對國二學生理化學習動機之影響。科學教育學刊，13。頁289-315。
盧秀琴（2005）：教學模組設計的特質及其功能的分析—以一個另有概念改變的教學模組發展為例。第二屆自然與生活科技學習領域課程研討會論文集。(頁9-34）。
賴麗琴（2000）：以「地球系統」為統整主軸之多元教學模組的研發與實踐。國立台灣師範大學地球科學所碩士論文。
蕭建華（2004）：初探不同學習環境對高一學生地球科學學習成效之影響。國
立台灣師範大學地球科學所碩士論文。

二、英文部分
Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? Science Teacher, 29.
Barman, C.,& Shedd, J. (1992). Program designed to introduce K-6 teachers to the learning cycle teaching approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 58–64.
Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers use of the learning cycle with science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 59–63.
Barman, C. R. (1993). The learning cycle: a basic tool for teachers, too. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 11(4), 7–11.
Bleicher, R. (2009). Variable Relationships among Different Science Learners in Elementary Science-Methods Courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2). 293–313.
Cavalla, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029–1062.
Chang, C. Y., & Chang ,Y.H.(2010) Enhancing the capacities of natural hazard mitigation: a study on a typhoon curriculum module in high school earth science Natural Hazards on-line-published-DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9538-1
Chang, C. Y. (1999). The use of a problem-solving-based instructional model in initiating change in students’ achievement and alternative frameworks. INT. J. SCI. EDUC.VOL. 21, NO. 4, 373–388
Chang, C. Y. (1999).Comparison of Taiwan science students, outcome with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research Volume 92, Number 6 / July-August 340-346
Chang, C. Y. (2004). Could a laptop computer plus the liquid crystal display projector amount to improved multimedia geoscience instruction? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20,4–10
Chen, Y. L.(2004). Exploring teachers' knowledge and attitudes on climatic hazard mitigation in Taiwan. National Taiwan Normal University .Department of Earth Sciences，Taipei
Dwyer, W., & Lopez,V. (2001). Simulations in the learning cycle: A case study involving“Exploring the Nardoo.” Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Computing Conference, Chicago. IL.
Eisenkraft，A. (2004)：A proposed 7E model emphasizes “transfer of learning” and the importance of eliciting prior understanding. The Science Teacher, Vol. 70,No. 6,
Glasson, G. & Lilik, R. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social constructivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers’s beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187–207.
GOLDSTON, M. J., & DAY, J. B., & SUNDBERG, C. & DANTZLER, J. (2009) PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A 5E LEARNING CYCLE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. on-line-published-DOI 10.1007/s10763-009-9178-7
Jinkins, D. (2002). Impact of the implementation of the teaching/learning cycle on teacher decision-making and emergent readers. Reading Psychology, 22(4), 267–288
Lovoie, D. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning cycle on high school student's process skills and conceptual understanding of biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1127–1147.
Marx,R.W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B. ,Soloway,E., Geier,R.,Tal , R. T.(2004)：Inquiry-Based Science in the Middle Grades: Assessment of
Learning in Urban Systemic Reform. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING. VOL. 41, NO. 10, 1063–1080.
Minner, D. D.,& Levy, A. J. ,& Century, J. Inquiry-Based Science Instruction—What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING 474-496
Munsheno, B. & Lawson, A. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23–37.
Maier, S. J. & Marek, E. A. (2006). The learning cycle: A re-introduction. The Physics Teacher, 44(2), 109–113.
Marek, E., Eubanks, C. & Gallaher, T. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834.
Odom, A., & Settlage, J. J. (1996). Teachers’ understandings of the learning cycle as assessed with a two-tier test. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 123–142.
Odom, A. & Kelly, P. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615–635.
Ru Wang, J. & Wen Lin, S. (2008). Examining reflective thinking: A study of changes in methods students' conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 459–479.
Settlage, J. J. (2000). Understanding the Learning Cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84,43–50.