當今科學校育課程強調融入社會性科學議題(Socio-scientific Issues，簡稱SSI)，而學生的道德判斷即與學生對議題的決策有關。本研究擬探討學生的學理背景或情緒是否會影響道德判斷的結果。
本研究利用眼球追蹤技術，探討在閱讀生物相關科學議題的敘述時，學科專業背景不同的大專生對不同類型敘述進行道德判斷，是否會受到具情緒性敘述的影響。研究材料之題目設計以教育部12年課綱中，普通高中應用生物所列的生物相關社會性議題作為架構，分為四大議題主題－農業、食品、環境、醫藥，進行包含技術或事件陳述、事件決策與事件結果與影響的三句議題敘述句。研究對象以網路招收大專生受試者，依學科背景分為具生科組與非生科組。本研究分為前測與正式實驗，兩部分。前測為利用Ｑ方法，篩選不同學科背景者情緒感受一致且顯著為正向情緒或負向情緒的題目，參與者包括生科組32人與非生科組組31人。正式實驗為利用眼動儀，探討不同學科背景學生進行道德判斷時的注意力分配與道德判斷結果有無差異，實驗組與對照組各為17人。
本研究之研究結果發現，兩組學生在道德判斷上的時間與結果並沒有達到顯著差異。但兩組學生皆同時會受到不同的議題主題或情緒題目的影響。學生們道德判斷的反應時間上，在醫藥類主題較長，在環境類上則較短。在道德判斷過程中的注意力分布上，在題目分類為負情緒時，傾向注意以負情緒描述的事件結果句子；在題目分類為正情緒時，傾向注意描述事件決策的句子。根據研究結果，我們認為：在進行社會性科學議題的道德判斷時，情緒的影響力大於學科背景。

Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) in Science curriculum has been widely used. Student’s moral judgments influence their socio-scientific decision-making. It’s worthwhile to do further study about the relationship between student’s professional background as well as emotion in moral judgment. In this study, we use an eye tracker to record the process when undergraduates of different professional background making moral judgment with reading the SSI scenarios which are composed of science concepts and emotional description.
The present study selected four main themes of the socioscientific topics - agriculture, food, environment and medicine, under the Newly Revised High School Curriculum Guidelines (12-Basic Guidelines) of Applied Biology. 97 Participants were recruited from the Internet and be individually tested in the study. In pretest, we used the Q methodology to measure students’ emotion when reading SSI sentences with biology professional group (N=32) and non-biology professional group (N=31). In Experiment, we used the eye tracking method to compare the eye movements and moral judgments with biology professional group (N=17) and non-biology professional group (N=17).
The results indicated that, when doing moral judgment, students with different professional backgrounds was not significantly different in reaction time and fixation zone. However, the eye movements of the students were different significantly between different emotion scenarios or socioscientific topics. Reaction time of the medicine topic was significantly higher than environment topic; Total fixation duration was significantly higher in area of negative emotional description. According to literature, emotion interacts with moral judgment, we suggest that the two groups do not differ significantly in moral judgment.

李萍（2003）。論日常道德與理想道德。玉溪師範學院學報，19(5)， 10-14。
林樹聲（2008）。科學教室中的社會性科學議題之教學。教師之友，49(4)，2-6。
邱廷祐（2013）。高中生社會性科學議題之道德判斷初探（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台灣師範大學，台北市。
教育部（2013）。修正普通高級中學課程綱要。台北：教育部。
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。
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。
劉慧慧（2002）。國中資優生情緒智力與道德判斷關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台東師範學院，台東縣。
賴婉甄（2008）。高雄地區高中生父母教養方式，情緒智力與道德判斷之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
謝青龍（1999）。科學態度、倫理傾向、與道德判斷對科學學習成就之相關性研究。臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所學位論文（未出版之博士論文），台北市。
Avramova, Y. R., & Inbar, Y. (2013). Emotion and moral judgment. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(2), 169-178.
Gendron, M., & Barrett, L. F. (2009). Reconstructing the past: A century of ideas about emotion in psychology. Emotion Review, 1(4), 316-339.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-2108.
Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(6), 787-795.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87, 329-354.
Kleinginna Jr, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and emotion, 5(4), 345-379.
Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Huang, T. C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25-42.
Lin, W. Y., Chiu, T. Y., & Chang, W. H. (2013). Writing to argue in socioscientific issues instruction. Poster presented at the 3rd Biennial Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education, Hong Kong.
Moretto, G., Làdavas, E., Mattioli, F., & Di Pellegrino, G. (2010). A psychophysiological investigation of moral judgment after ventromedial prefrontal damage. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 22(8), 1888-1899.
Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Calvo, M. G. (2006). Eye movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. Emotion, 6(2), 257-268.
Prinz, J. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9(1), 29-43.
Royzman, E. B., Leeman, R. F., & Sabini, J. (2008). “You make me sick”: Moral dyspepsia as a reaction to third-party sibling incest. Motivation and Emotion, 32(2), 100-108.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.
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., & 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. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
Scott, G. G., O’Donnell, P. J., Leuthold, H., & Sereno, S. C. (2009). Early emotion word processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Biological psychology, 80(1), 95-104.
Scott, G. G., O'Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2012). Emotion words affect eye fixations during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 783.
Tomas, L., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Positive emotional responses to hybridised writing about a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 25-49.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2005). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (Vol. 19). Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Netherlands: Springer.
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.