本研究以準實驗研究法探討不同鷹架設計之教材對於學生心智模式和科學解釋之影響差異。研究對象為臺北市立某高級中學一年級之學生，有效樣本共81人。研究工具為鷹架式探究課程、學習單、晤談單、開放式問答測驗等。整體而言，全體學生在課程前後學生對地球內部結構的概念並無顯著差異，但對板塊運動動力來源和臺灣附近地體構造等的心智模式皆達顯著差異。此結果可能與課程中所使用地震軟體做為視覺輔助之鷹架有關，因為地震軟體可將抽象的板塊運動概念視覺化、具體化，以幫助學生理解。在科學解釋部分，學生除了說明主張並未達顯著外，在提出證據、推理解釋及綜合科學解釋上皆於課程結束後顯著進步。將學生分成兩組實驗組，分別接受本研究所設計之兩種不同鷹架的教材進行教學實驗，研究結果顯示兩組學生在地球內部結構和板塊運動動力來源的心智模式、說明主張皆無顯著差異；但是，兩組學生在臺灣附近的地體構造的心智模式、提出證據、推理解釋以及綜合科學解釋等皆達顯著差異，即接受完整鷹架教學之學生，進步幅度高於接受簡單鷹架教學之組別，主要是因為完整鷹架的教材中的學習單所提供之文字提示能將學習任務由簡單到複雜逐步引導學生完成探究，並且能夠輔助學生理解視覺軟體(地震軟體)中的表徵意義及其背後的科學意涵。

This study aims to examine the effects of different scaffolds on student mental model and scientific explanation through the data analysis of worksheets, interviews, and students’ responses of open-end questions. After adopting experiment methodology, the researchers selected 81 tenth graders at Taipei city as participants to receive the scaffolding inquiry curriculum in the topic of tectonics. The main results indicated that student’s mental models of earth inner structure had no significant difference before and after the curriculum, but in the plate dynamics and terrain structure in Taiwan area were had significant improved after the curriculum. It is possibly because the earthquake software provided visualizations to help students reveal underlying meaning of the data. For scientific explanatory, the students had significantly improved in the overall scientific explanation, describing supporting evidences, and reasoning. After grouping students into two experimental groups, two versions of the scaffolding inquiry curriculum including complete scaffolding and simply scaffolding were administrated. The results showed that the students in the complete scaffolding group performed no significantly different than those in the simple scaffolding group in their mental models of earth inner structure and the plate dynamics. However, the students in the complete scaffolding group performed significantly better in the mental model of terrain structure nearby Taiwan, describing supporting evidences, reasoning and overall scientific explanation. It is because that the complete scaffolding version provided written prompts in the activity sheets to help students inquiry from simple to complex tasks and to guide them to reveal the meaning of representations in the visualization tool which could promote students’ constructing correct mental models and reasoning based on evidences.

一、中文部分
谷瑞勉(譯)(1999)。Berk, L. E.與Wisler, A.著。鷹架兒童的學習：維高斯基與幼兒教育。臺北市：心理。
毛炳楠(2005)。國民小學數學教師教學鷹架策略分析之個案研究。國立臺中師範學院碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
王保進(2006)。英文視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。臺北市：心理。
何春蓀(2002)。普通地質學。臺北市：五南。
吳育雅(1995)。「合作思考」對高一學生科學知識學習的影響。國立師範大學科 學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
吳佳蓮(2006)。科學探究活動中國小五年級學童科學解釋能力及認識論之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
吳家鶴(2006)。探究板塊構造運動的迷思概念與比較多重類比和反駁陳述對促進板塊構造運動迷思概念改變之成效。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
吳清吉等(2002)。基礎地球科學。王執明主編。臺北縣：龍騰文化。
李旭旦(譯)(2007)。Wegener, A.著。海陆的起源。北京市：北京大学。
林正弘(1988)。伽利略、波柏、科學說明。臺北市：東大。
周淑惠(2003)。淺談幼兒教學中的鷹架搭構。國教世紀，206，13-18。
周淑惠(2005)。鷹架引導策略。國教世紀， 216， 45-56。
侯依伶(2003)。國三學生板塊構造運動概念學習之心智狀態研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。國立高雄師範大學學報，15，641-662。
洪蘭(2008，10月)。講題：培養高 SQ 的下一代，臺北市。
張莞珍(1998)。從終身學習的觀點論鷹架理論在培養關鍵學習能力教學實務之應用。松高學報，1，145-159。
教育部(2003a)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市: 教育部。
教育部(2003b)。科學教育白皮書。臺北市：教育部。
教育部(2004)。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎地球科學」課程暫行綱要。普通高級中學課程暫行綱要總綱 (pp.159-166)。2007年11月14日取自「普通高級中學課程基礎地球科學學科中心」，http://163.32.57.16/earth。
教育部(2008)。普通高級中學必修科目「基礎地球科學」課程綱要。普通高級中學課程綱要 (pp.267-273) 。2008年05月06日取自「普通高級中學課程基礎地球科學學科中心」，http://163.32.57.16/earth。
許芳菊(2006)。全球化下的關鍵能力。天下雜誌，2006年教育專刊，22-27。
許瑛玿、楊芳瑩與蔡孟蓉(2006-2008)。區塊研究－鷹架式科學探究課程對學生科學學習影響之研究。計畫編號：NSC 95-2522-S-003 -016 -MY3。
黃達三(1998)。國小教師於科學教育的口語解釋研究。科學教育學刊，6(3)，285-302。
陸健體(1994)。關於世界的問答-科學說明。臺北市：淑馨。
郭瑞濤(2000)。地球科學概論。臺北市：新學識文教。
陳可恭(2005)。從系統典範探討板塊構造學說多重類比教學-「凱利方格法」（RGT）之系統性應用。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳建志與馬家齊(譯)(2005)。Kious, W. J.與Tilling, R. I.著。板塊構造學說紀事。臺北市：五南。
陳婉茹(2004)。探討動態類比對於化學平衡概念學習之研究-八年級學生概念本體及心智模式之變化。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
曾舒平(2005)。探討高一學生對於「板塊構造運動」所持有之概念架構之解釋融貫性。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃毓翎(2004)。以言談分析方法解析鷹架輔助之線上即時互動。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
黃毓琪(2007)。IT及STS探究教學對國小學童科學解釋能力之影響。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
謝州恩(2004)。探究情境中國小學童科學解釋能力成長之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
謝莉文(2006)。鷹架式科學探究課程研發與實踐的個案研究。國立臺灣師範大學 地球科學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
簡錦鳳(2008)。文字鷹架對七年級學生科學解釋能力的影響。國立臺灣師範大學 科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。

二、西文部份
AAAS[American Association for the Advancement of Science] (1989). Science for all Americans : a Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology (pp. 3-31&133-139). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Ault, J., C. R. (1984). The everyday perspective and exceedingly unobvious meaning. Journal of Geological Education, 32, 89-91.
Barrow, L. H. (2006).A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education，17，265–278.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind : the Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bruner, J., & Haste, H. (1990). Making sense : the child's construction of the world. New York: Routledge.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121-127.
Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher-child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science Education, 76(4), 373-397.
Ford, B., & Taylor, M. (2006). Investigating students' ideas about plate tectonics. Science Scope, 30(1), 38-43.
Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937-977.
Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.
Hempel, G. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 245-290). New York: The Free Press.
Hestenes, D. (2006). Notes for a Modeling Theory of Science, Cognition and Instruction. Paper presented at the 2006 GIREP conference: Modeling in Physics and Physics Education, Amsterdam.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Model-It: A Case Study of Learner-Centered Software Design for Supporting Model Building. (No. RED 9353481). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(10), 434-442.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2004). The history of mental models. In K. Manktelow, and Chung, M.C. (Eds), Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives (pp. 179-212). New York: Psychology Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Ruth, B. (2000). A Gentle Introduction. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.tcd.ie/Psychology/other/Ruth_Byrne/mental_models/index.html
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S. W., Science, J. D., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students' ideas about the earth: interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17-26.
Marques, L., & Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning continental drift and plate tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16-17. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(2), 195-222.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
Meyer, I. D., Pauly, J. & Poele, L. V. d. (2005). Learning for Tomorrow’s Problems First Results from PISA2003. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/60/36324368.pdf
National Research Council [NRC] (1996). Nation Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council
National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens , Mental models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
Rouse, W. B. & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349-363.
Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80-84.
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Salmon, W. C. (1989a). Four decades of scientific explanation. In P. Kitcher & W. C. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 3-219). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Salmon, W. C. (1989b). Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. .
Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press. .
Sandoval, W. A. (2002). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2 (1), 6-7.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Schwab, J. (1960). Enquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The Science Teacher, 27(6), 6-11.
Schwab, J. & Brandwein, P. F. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry / [by] Joseph J. Schwab; Elements in a strategy for teaching science in the elementary school [by] Paul F. Brandwein. The teaching of science (2th ed., pp. 3-103). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Scriven, M. (1988). Explanations, predictions, and laws. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), Theories of explanation. . New York: Oxford University Press.
Sibley, D. F. (2005). Visual abilities and misconceptions about plate tectonics. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 471-477.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stuyf, R. V. D. (2002). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy. Retrieved June 01, 2007, from http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~group4/Van Der Stuyf/Van Der Stuyf Paper.doc
Tamir, P. (1989). Training Teachers to Teach Effectively in the Laboratory. Science Education, 73(1), 59-69.
University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP] (1996). Alfred Wegener. Retrieved April 01, 2008, from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
U. S. Geological Survey [USGS] (1996). This Dynamic Earth. Retrieved April 01, 2008, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585
Wong, E. D. (1996). Students' scientific explanations and the contexts in which they occur. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 495-509.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
World Economic Forum [WEF] (2003). The Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GCR_03_04_Executive_Summary.pdf
World Economic Forum [WEF] (2004). The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GCR_04_05_Executive_Summary.pdf
World Economic Forum [WEF] (2005). The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GCR_05_06_Executive_Summary.pdf