本研究將社會性科學議題導入高中基礎生物教學中，藉此探討高一學生在進行議題教學前後，是否會影響學生在面對相同的道德陳述句時，道德判斷上會有所差異，並且，不同的學生特質，是否會在不同的陳述句內容或結構，在道德判斷上有所差異。研究對象為新北市內一所公立高中，有效樣本為159人。由於道德判斷具有強烈主觀性，本研究採用Q方法來檢測學生的道德判斷，利用自行編製之Q樣本施測之，這些Q樣本被設計為單一陳述句，陳述句加結果，陳述句加結果加影響等三種類型，其內容包括基因轉殖、入侵外來種與環境汙染等議題。
　　研究結果為：一、受試者在教學前後面對單一陳述句，與提及技術、結果與造成影響之陳述句之道德判斷上會有差異，並且教學後之道德判斷會向中立道德遷移。二、受試者在陳述句內容為入侵外來種與環境汙染前後測之道德判斷會有差異。三、不同性別的學生在後測中做單一陳述句的道德判斷時有顯著差異。四、不同性別的學生在後測中於環境汙染陳述句做道德判斷時有顯著差異。五、不同類組傾向學生之道德判斷在不同結構的陳述句與不同內容的陳述句間皆無顯著差異。最後，探討教學前後道德判斷改變的原因。利用因素分析將前後測Q分類之道德判斷差異結果萃取出五個因素，並利用晤談的方式分別命名為不主動改變主張、延遲判斷、無法決定、本質判斷、外部控制等。

The purpose of this study is to develop the Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) instruction in biology curriculum for Taiwanese senior high school freshmen, and to explore students' moral judgment in different types of issues. The 159 participants were from a public senior high school in New Taipei City. Considering moral judgment is strongly subjectivity, this study used Q methodology to measure students' moral judgment before and after the instruction. The statement items in Q methodology was found in textbook, websites, newspapers or journals which including gene modify, invader species, and environment pollution.
The data analysis indicated that, first, students had done significantly different moral judgment in the same statement before and after instruction in single sentence which contained only an event or a technology. Second, students had done significantly different moral judgment in the same statement which included issues of invader species and environment pollution. Third, different gender students would make different moral judgment in single sentence. Fourth, there was no significant difference between moral judgments made by students with different academic tendency. Finally, we explored the reason of the moral judgment change between pre-test and pro-test for first stage Q-sort and second stage Q-sort. In first stage Q-sort, we separated students into 3 groups and interviewed selected participants from each group. In second stage, we used Q factor analysis to extract participants into 5 groups, and interviewed for each groups to get deeper understandings about the factors.

中文部分
毛連塭、陳麗華、吳清山。（1992）。康乃爾批判思考測驗修訂報告。初等教育學刊，1，1-28。
伍振鶩。（1999）。教育哲學。台北：五南。
李亭誼。（2011）。探討不同科學認識觀的八年級學生在社會性科學議題上論證能力的表現（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
李鴻章。（2000）。台灣地區民眾背景因素、教育程度與道德判斷相關性及其變遷之研究－以民國八十三年與八十八年做比較。教育與社會研究，4，35-69。
沈介文、劉仲矩、徐純慧。（1997）。以Q方法探討組織成員價值觀類型之研究－台灣資訊中小企業之個案分析。企業管理學報，40，29-48。
周柏成。（2010）。國中生物科技倫理之研究－以基因改造食品為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
林樹聲。（2004）。通識素養的培育與爭議性科技議題的教學。南華大學通識教學中心， 2，25-37。
林顯輝。（1991）。我國中小學科學教育的新方向—科學、技學、社會三者相結合之科學教育新理念。屏東師院學報，4，80-102。
邱皓政。（2006）。量化研究與統計分析－SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析（基礎版）。台北市: 五南。
張鳳燕。（1995）。教師道德推理測驗之發展。教育與心理研究，18，103-138。
教育部。（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北: 教育部。
教育部。（2010）。普通高級中學課程綱要。台北: 教育部。
許心欣。（1994）。參與環境保護工作之民間團體主要幹部環境態度調查（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
郭思禹。（2005）。政治行政關係之研究：以Q方法論對台北市府會聯絡人的應用（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳怡伶。（2004）。職場情緒勒索認知與員工效能關聯性之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。實踐大學。
陳玟伶。（2009）。應用社會性科學議題探究國小六年級學童道德判斷及其依據之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳㛄霓。（2010）。以Q方法探索台灣與森林有關之環境教育概念隱含構念（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
黃經。（2001）。安養單位長期照護者之人格類型與工作適配之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。義守大學。
楊巧玲。（2005）。性別化的興趣與能力：高中學生類組選擇之探究。臺灣教育社會學研究，5（2），113-153。
鄔昆如。（1993）。倫理學。台北市: 五南。
靳知勤，楊惟程，段曉林。（2010）。國小學童的非形式推理之研究－以生物複製議題之引導式論證為例。課程與教學季刊，13（1），209-232。
廖智倩。（1999）。Q方法在運動教育學上的應用（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
劉美慧。（1998）。議題中心教學法的理論與實際。花蓮師院學報，8，153-179。
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，15（3），335-356。
鄭榮輝。（2000）。職前教師對生物倫理教育的認知與態度（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
盧俊達。（2011）。高中生面對社會性科學議題之道德判斷及判斷依據之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學。
盧欽銘。（1989）。Q技術。在楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園 （編），社會及行為科學研究法 （下冊，741-757）。台北市: 東華。
謝慈雪。（2010）。國中生社會性科學議題的論證研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
羅文輝。（1986）。Q方法的理論與應用。新聞學研究，37，45-72。

西文部分
Abd-El-Khalick. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms－The primacy of learners' epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (Vol. 19, pp. 41-61) Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
Bolland, J. M. (1985). The search for structure: An alternative to the forced Q-sort technique. Political Methodology. 11(1/2), 91-107.
Brabeck, M. M. (1983). Critical Thinking Skills and Reflective Judgment Development: Redefining the Aims of Higher Education. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 4, 23-34.
Brown, S. R. (1971). The forced-free distinction in Q technique. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(4), 283-287.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2011). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 13, 59-68.
Cottle, C. E., & McKeown, B. (1980). The forced-free distinction in Q technique: A note on unused categories in the Q sort continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 3(2), 58-63.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ekborg M, Ottander C, Silfver E, & Simon S. (2012). Teachers' experience of working with socio-scientific issues: a large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1147-1163.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity on the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guzzetti, B., J.,, & William, W. O. (1996). Gender, text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 5-20.
Hare, R. M. (1993). Essays on bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hornig, S. (1992). Gender differences in responses to news about science and technology. Science Technology and Human Values, 17(4), 532-542.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: CBS college publishing.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
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.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
Lewisa, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio‐scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. New Delhi: Sara Miller McCune, Sage Publications, Inc.
Norman, A. D., Richards, H. C., & Bear, G. G. (1998). Moral Reasoning and Religious Belief: does content influence structure? Journal of Moral Education, 27(1), 89-98.
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. (1999). Decision Making and STS Education: Exploring Scientific Knowledge and Social Responsibility in Schools and Science Centers Through an Issues-Based Approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship- Teaching socio-scientific issues. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development : advances in research and theory New York: Praeger.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
Sadler, T. D. (2006) Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as context for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 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.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921.
Schinger, M. J. (1969). Cues on Q-technique. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 53-60.
Siebert, E. D., & McIntosh, W. J. (2001). College pathways to the science education standards. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role -play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science‐based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431-444.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361-388.
Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136, 297.
Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scales for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67.
Walkera, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Ware, S. A. (2001). Teaching chemistry from a societal perspective. Pure and Applicaction Chemistry, 73(7), 1209-1214.
Wark, G. R., & Kerbs, D. L. (1996). Gender and dilemma differences in real-life moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 220-230.
Yuan, B. J., & Shen, J. P. (1998). Moral value held by adolescents in Taiwan and Mainland China. Journal of Moral Education, 27(3), 191-206.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 799-803.
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.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students' Knowledge and Argumentation Skills Through Dilemmas in Human Genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 36-62.