题名

探討科學探究文創工作坊提升高中職學生科學探究自我效能之差異與預測力

并列篇名

Exploring the Effectiveness of a Scientific Inquiry Creative Workshop in Promoting Senior and Vocational High School Students' Scientific Inquiry Self-efficacy

DOI

10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006

作者

魯盈讌(Ying-Yan Lu)；林煥祥(Huann-Shyang Lin)；林福來(Fou-Lai Lin)；洪瑞兒(Zuway-R Hong)

关键词

科學探究文創工作坊 ； 科學探究自我效能 ； 高中職學生 ； 結構方程模式 ； 臺灣 ； science inquiry creative workshop ； scientific inquiry self-efficacy ； senior and vocational high school students ； structural equation modeling ； Taiwan

期刊名称

教育科學研究期刊

卷期/出版年月

67卷4期（2022 / 12 / 01）

页次

177 - 219

内容语文

英文
中文摘要

本研究目的在探討高中職學生參與科學探究文創工作坊後，科學探究自我效能之差異性與中介效果表現。科學探究文創工作坊於臺灣北、中、南三區辦理，藉以培養高中職學生對於自然科學具備好奇心與想像力，並能用文字、影像、漫畫表達出科學探究的創作能力。科學探究文創工作坊包含兩階段課程，第一階段為2小時「科學探究能力培養課程」，第二階段為3小時「科學探究文創實作課程」。共計有480位高中職學生參與本次工作坊，並於課程結束後填寫信、效度良好的「科學探究自我效能問卷」線上版。本研究發現：一、南區高中職學生的科學探究自我效能顯著高於中區學生；二、男學生科學探究自我效能顯著高於女學生；三、主動參與工作坊之高中職學生的科學探究自我效能顯著高於其他被動參與的學生；四、高中職學生的科學探究自我效能總分與「探究力」以及「科學表現」分向度有高度顯著正關聯；五、高中職學生之「參與度」與「興趣好奇」對於「探究力」及「科學表現」具有顯著的預測力。本研究為辦理科學探究文創工作坊之初探，未來將根據研究結果作為規劃非制式科學探究課程及相關研究之參考。
英文摘要

Background and Purpose. The Ministry of Education in Taiwan officially launched the 12-year National Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines in 2019. The core purpose of the 12-year national education curriculum is to cultivate people-oriented lifelong learners. Specifically, learning is no longer limited by subject knowledge and skills; instead, it should cultivate student competency to solve problems, conduct inquiries, analyze data, and critically examine findings to solve problems and achieve self-growth (Ministry of Education, 2021). To cultivate student scientific inquiry literacy, this study hosted a 1-day scientific inquiry creative workshop (SICW) in northern, central, and southern Taiwan on October 17 and 18, 2020. The main purposes of this study were to improve student scientific inquiry self-efficacy through the SICW, to determine the differential performance of students with different backgrounds, and to explore the key factors related to student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Literature Review. The PISA 2015 results revealed no significant differences in the scientific self-efficacy of 15-year-old male and female students in Taiwan (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015). However, clear gender differences were noted in the choice of higher education academic fields between male and female students (Lin & Tsai, 2018). Accordingly, gender influences student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. In addition, Chang (2013) reported that the uneven distribution of educational resources between the north and the south of Taiwan also exerts a considerable effect on student learning motivation and learning self-efficacy. Therefore, to understand the scientific inquiry self-efficacy of students with different background variables after participating in the SICW, we proposed the following research hypothesis (H1): Significant regional, gender, and motivation differences exist in student scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW. Studies on scientific self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Trujillo & Tanner, 2014) have reported that students' beliefs about their ability to succeed in science activities significantly affect their willingness to engage in science-related activities. In addition, Kupermintz (2002) observed that students' scientific inquiry self-efficacy was significantly correlated with their interest in science learning and academic performance in middle school, high school, and university. Accordingly, to understand the factors affecting student scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW, we proposed the following research hypothesis (H2): Significant correlations exist between gender, learning motivation, and scientific inquiry self-efficacy variables. In Taiwan, Hong et al. (2020) found that students' high learning motivation exerted a significant mediating effect on the relationships between learning interest and scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Furthermore, Hong and Lin (2013) indicated that the scientific self-efficacy scores of senior and vocational high school male students were significantly higher than those of female students, especially for male students with a high level of interest in scientific activities. This thus implies that gender would have a mediating effect on student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Accordingly, we proposed the following hypothesis (H3): Learning motivations and gender have a significant mediating effect on the relationship between science participation and curiosity as a predictor of scientific inquiry ability and scientific performance. Methods. The SICW was a 1-day workshop divided into two parts. The first part involved a Scientific Inquiry Ability Training course, and the second part involved a Scientific Inquiry Creative Practice course, consisting of science writing, science video production, and science comics drawing. The SICW was held in northern, central, and southern Taiwan, with a total of 480 senior and vocational high school students participating in it. All participating students completed a structured scientific inquiry self-efficacy questionnaire after the 1-day SICW. Regarding the data analysis process, this study first used multivariate analysis of variance to analyze the effects of region, gender, and learning motivation differences on student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Subsequently, the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient and structural equation modeling were used to explore the relationships between the variables related to student scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Results. 1. Students with different backgrounds exhibited significant differences in scientific inquiry self-efficacy after participating in the SICW. (1) Students from southern Taiwan presented significantly higher scores on scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did those from central Taiwan. (2) Male students exhibited significantly higher scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did female students. (3) Actively engaged students had higher scientific inquiry self-efficacy than did their passively engaged counterparts. 2. The students' total scientific inquiry self-efficacy score had a significant and positive correlation with their inquiry ability and scientific performance. 3. The students' scientific engagement, scientific interest, and curiosity scores had significant predictive power on their inquiry ability and scientific performance. 4. The student gender and learning motivation exerted a mediating effect on their scientific inquiry self-efficacy. Discussion and Suggestions. According to the theory proposed by Clark and Mayer (2016), when meaningful learning images are used in the learning process, students' positive emotions toward learning and learning motivation are improved. The present study observed that combining the Scientific Inquiry Ability Training course with the Scientific Inquiry Creative Practice course in the SICW exerted a significant effect on secondary school students. The SICW also combined multiple strategies, such as cross-disciplinary scientific innovation themes, professional innovative teaching, and multimedia teaching, which could effectively improve learning motivation and scientific inquiry self-efficacy (Park et al., 2014). This study has two essential findings: First, students' scientific engagement and scientific interest and curiosity can significantly predict their inquiry ability and scientific performance. This study combined scientific inquiry theory with three different creative practice courses (science writing, science video production, and science comics drawing) to cultivate student scientific inquiry self-efficacy in a 1-day workshop (Falk & Dierking, 2010). The study findings demonstrate the educational value of the SICW and reveal the differences and relationships among participants' scientific inquiry self-efficacy variables. Second, this study verified the mediating effect of gender and learning motivation on students' inquiry ability and scientific performance. Accordingly, teachers should consider how to integrate the cross-domain STEAM curriculum design with effective teaching methods to eliminate gender differences and help those who have low learning motivation to improve their learning interest; this may influence their inquiry ability and scientific performance. In conclusion, the present study explored the effectiveness of an SICW in promoting senior and vocational high school students' scientific inquiry self-efficacy. The study findings are expected to stimulate further discussion on informal science education and provide more beneficial empirical evidence to strengthen the development of student scientific inquiry self-efficacy.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 何仕仁, S.-J.,黃台珠, I. T.-C.,吳裕益, Y.-Y.(2007)。科學自我效能量表之發展。科學教育學刊，15(6)，613-626。
    連結：
  2. 林小慧, H.-H.,郭哲宇, C.-Y.,吳心楷, H.-K.(2021)。學生學習投入、好奇心、教師集體層級變項與科學探究能力的關係：跨層級調節式中介效果之探討。教育科學研究期刊，66(2)，75-110。
    連結：
  3. 洪榮昭, J.-C.,王志美, C.-M.,葉貞妮, J.-N.,吳鳳姝, F.-S.(2020)。遊戲自我效能、遊戲興趣、認知負荷與地理桌遊的遊玩自信心提升之相關研究。教育科學研究期刊，65(3)，225-250。
    連結：
  4. 范斯淳, S.-C.,游光昭, K.-C.(2016)。科技教育融入STEM 課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊，61(2)，153-183。
    連結：
  5. 張碧如, B.-R.(2013)。臺灣南部對另類教育的需求初探。教育理論與實踐學刊，28，33-53。
    連結：
  6. 靳知勤, C.-C.(2007)。科學教育應如何提升學生的科學素養─台灣學術精英的看法。科學教育學刊，15(6)，627-646。
    連結：
  7. 蔡執仲, C.-C.,段曉林, H.-L.(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(3)，289-315。
    連結：
  8. 蔡執仲, C.-C.,段曉林, H.-L.,靳知勤, C.-C.(2007)。巢狀探究教學模式對國二學生理化學習動機影響之探討。科學教育學刊，15(2)，119-144。
    連結：
  9. Abell, S. K.(Ed.),Lederman, N. G.(Ed.)(2014).Handbook of research on science education.Routledge.
  10. Ainley, M.,Hidi, S.,Berndorff, D.(2002).Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship.Journal of Educational Psychology,94(3),545-561.
  11. Allen, S.,Peterman, K.(2019).Evaluating informal STEM education: Issues and challenges in context.Evaluation in informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education
  12. Andrew, S.(1998).Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science.Journal of Advanced Nursing,27(3),596-603.
  13. Annetta, L.(Ed.),Bronack, S. C.(Ed.)(2010).Serious educational game assessment: Practical methods and models for educational games, simulations and virtual worlds.Sense.
  14. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,16(1),74-94.
  15. Bandura, A.(1977).Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review,84(2),191-215.
  16. Bandura, A.(1965).Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1(6),589-595.
  17. Bandura, A.(1986).The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,4(3),359-373.
  18. Barmby, P.,Kind, P. M.,Jones, K.(2008).Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science.International Journal of Science Education,30(8),1075-1093.
  19. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Why flipped classrooms are here to stay. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/06/12/fp_bergmann_sams.html?tkn=WPCC1Rxu4%2FbCFsj3iEU3%2Bqk97aMS3xc0jkgq&cmp=clp-sb-edtech
  20. Bischoff, P. J.,Castendyk, D.,Gallagher, H.,Schaumloffel, J.,Labroo, S.(2008).A science summer camp as an effective way to recruit high school students to major in the physical sciences and science education.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,3(3),131-141.
  21. Britner, S. L.,Pajares, F.(2001).Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science.Journal of women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,7(4),271-285.
  22. Chen, H.-T.,Wang, H.-H.,Lu, Y.-Y.,Hong, Z.-R.(2019).Bridging the gender gap of children’s engagement in learning science and argumentation through a modified argument-driven inquiry.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,17(4),635-655.
  23. Chen, H.-T.,Wang, H.-H.,Lu, Y.-Y.,Lin, H.-S.,Hong, Z. R.(2016).Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation.International Journal of Science Education,38(2),170-191.
  24. Christenson, S. L.(Ed.),Reschly, A. L.(Ed.),Wylie, C.(Ed.)(2012).Handbook of research on student engagement.Springer.
  25. Clark, R. C.,Mayer, R. E.(2016).E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning.John Wiley & sons.
  26. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Conner, L. D. C.,Danielson, J.(2016).Scientist role models in the classroom: How important is gender matching?.International Journal of Science Education,38(15),2414-2430.
  28. Crane, N.,Zusho, A.,Ding, Y.,Cancelli, A.(2017).Domain-specific metacognitive calibration in children with learning disabilities.Contemporary Educational Psychology,50,72-79.
  29. D’Mello, S.(2013).A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology.Journal of Educational Psychology,105(4),1082-1099.
  30. Deci, E. L.(Ed.),Ryan, R. M.(Ed.)(2002).Handbook of self-determination research.University of Rochester Press.
  31. Falk, J. H.,Dierking, L. D.(2010).The 95 percent solution.American Scientist,98(6),486-493.
  32. Fredricks, J. A.,Blumenfeld, P. C.,Paris, A. H.(2004).School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research,74(1),59-109.
  33. Gettings, M.(2016).Putting it all together: STEAM, PBL, scientific method, and the studio habits of mind.Art Education,69(4),10-11.
  34. Ghanbari, S.(2015).Learning across disciplines: A collective case study of two university programs that integrate the arts with STEM.International Journal of Education & the Arts,16(7),1-21.
  35. Godding, P. R.,Glasgow, R. E.(1985).Self-efficacy and outcome expectations as predictors of controlled smoking status.Cognitive Therapy and Research,9(5),583-590.
  36. Hajian, S.(2019).Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories and effective instructional practices.IAFOR Journal of Education,7(1),93-111.
  37. Hidi, S.(2001).Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations.Educational Psychology Review,13(3),191-209.
  38. Hong, Z.-R.(2010).Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward science.International Journal of Science Education,32(15),1971-1988.
  39. Hong, Z.-R.,Lin, H.-S.(2013).Boys’ and girls’ involvement in science learning and their self-efficacy in Taiwan.International Journal of Psychology,48(3),272-284.
  40. Hong, Z.-R.,Lin, H.-S.,McCarthy Veach, P.(2008).Effects of an extracurricular science intervention on science performance, self-worth, social skills, and sexist attitudes of Taiwanese adolescents from single-parent families.Sex Roles,59(7-8),555-567.
  41. Hong, Z.-R.,Lin, H.-S.,Wang, H.-H.,Chen, H.-T.,Yang, K.-K.(2013).Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention.International Journal of Science Education,35(10),1625-1648.
  42. Hu, L.-T.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1),1-55.
  43. Hunter-Doniger, T.(2018).Art infusion: Ideal conditions for STEAM.Art Education,71(2),22-27.
  44. Johnson, D. W.,Johnson, R. T.(1994).Learning together and alone.Allyn & Bacon.
  45. Kaplan-Sayı, A.(2017).Students’ views about enriched summer camp for high school students.EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,13(11),7161-7177.
  46. Keys, C. W.,Bryan, L. A.(2001).Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform.Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,38(6),631-645.
  47. Kuo, Y. R.,Tuan, H. L.,Chin, C. C.(2019).Examining low and non-low achievers’ motivation towards science learning under inquiry-based instruction.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,17(5),845-862.
  48. Kupermintz, H.(2002).Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science achievement.Educational Assessment,8(2),123-137.
  49. Lamb, R. L.,Vallett, D.,Annetta, L.(2014).Development of a short-form measure of science and technology self-efficacy using Rasch analysis.Journal of Science Education and Technology,23(5),641-657.
  50. Land, M. H.(2013).Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM.Procedia Computer Science,20,547-552.
  51. Lepper, M. R.,Corpus, J. H.,Iyengar, S. S.(2005).Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates.Journal of Educational Psychology,97(2),184-196.
  52. Liao, C.(2016).From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education.Art Education,69(6),44-49.
  53. Lin, H.-S.,Lawrenz, F.,Lin, S.-F.,Hong, Z.-R.(2013).Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science related activities.Public Understanding of Science,22(8),941-954.
  54. Lin, T.-J.,Tsai, C.-C.(2018).Differentiating the sources of Taiwanese high school students’ multidimensional science learning self-efficacy: An examination of gender differences.Research in Science Education,48(3),575-596.
  55. Linnenbrink, E. A.,Pintrich, P. R.(2003).The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom.Reading & Writing Quarterly,19(2),119-137.
  56. Liu, A. S.,Schunn, C. D.(2020).Predicting pathways to optional summer science experiences by socioeconomic status and the impact on science attitudes and skills.International Journal of STEM Education,7(1),1-22.
  57. Liu, S.-J.,Zhang, J.,Pan, J.-S.,Weng, C.-J.(2018).A novel information embedding and recovering method for QR code based on module subdivision.Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing,9(2),515-522.
  58. Lloyd, R.,Neilson, R.,King, S.,Dyball, M.(2012).Review of informal science learning.Wellcome Trust.
  59. Maddux, J. E.(1995).Self-efficacy theory: An introduction.Self-efficacy theory Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research and application
  60. Martin-Hansen, L. M.(2002).Defining inquiry Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom.The Science Teacher,69(2),34-37.
  61. Mayer, R. E.(2005).Cognitive theory of multimedia learning.The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning,41,31-48.
  62. Mayer, R. E.(2001).Multimedia learning.Cambridge University Press.
  63. Meissner, B.,Bogner, F.(2013).Towards cognitive load theory as guideline for instructional design in science education.World Journal of Education,3(2),24-37.
  64. Murphy, P. K.,Alexander, P. A.(2000).A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1),3-53.
  65. National Research Council(1996).National science education standards.National Academy Press.
  66. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). PISA 2015 results in focus. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
  67. Park, B.,Plass, J. L.,Brünken, R.(2014).Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning.Learning and Instruction,29,125-127.
  68. Rahmat, I.,Chanunan, S.(2018).Open inquiry in facilitating metacognitive skills on high school biology learning: An inquiry on low and high academic ability.International Journal of Instruction,11(4),593-606.
  69. Ren, F.,Li, X.,Zhang, H.,Wang, L.(2012).Progression of Chinese students’ creative imagination from elementary through high school.International Journal of Science Education,34(13),2043-2059.
  70. Renninger, K. A.(2017).Interest and motivation in informal science learning.National Research Council.
  71. Roberts, T.,Jackson, C.,Mohr-Schroeder, M. J.,Bush, S. B.,Maiorca, C.,Cavalcanti, M.,Schroeder, D. C.,Delaney, A.,Putnam, L.,Cremeans, C.(2018).Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience.International Journal of STEM Education,5(1),1-14.
  72. Rolling, J. H., Jr.(2016).Reinventing the STEAM engine for art + design education.Art Education,69(4),4-7.
  73. Schmidt, J. A.,Kafkas, S. S.,Maier, K. S.,Shumow, L.,Kackar-Cam, H. Z.(2019).Why are we learning this? Using mixed methods to understand teachers’ relevance statements and how they shape middle school students’ perceptions of science utility.Contemporary Educational Psychology,57,9-31.
  74. Silverman, I.,Shulman, A. D.(1970).A conceptual model of artifact in attitude change studies.Sociometry,33(1),97-107.
  75. So, W. W. M.,Chen, Y.,Wan, Z. H.(2019).Multimedia e-learning and self-regulated science learning: A study of primary school learners’ experiences and perceptions.Journal of Science Education and Technology,28(5),508-522.
  76. Tomlinson, C. A.(2014).The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.Alexandria.
  77. Trujillo, G.,Tanner, K. D.(2014).Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity.CBE-Life Sciences Education,13(1),6-15.
  78. Tsai, P.-Y.,Chen, S.,Chang, H.-P.,Chang, W.-H.(2013).Effects of prompting critical reading of science news on seventh graders’ cognitive achievement.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,8(1),85-107.
  79. Upton, G.,Cook, I.(2008).A dictionary of statistics.Oxford University Press.
  80. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Harvard University Press.
  81. Wang, H.-H.,Lin, H.-S.,Chen, Y.-C.,Pan, Y.-T.,Hong, Z.-R.(2021).Modeling relationships between students’ inquiry-related learning activities and their choice of future STEM career.International Journal of Science Education,43(1),157-178.
  82. Weiner, B.(1972).Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.Review of Educational Research,42(2),203-215.
  83. Yang, K.-K.,Lee, L.,Hong, Z.-R.,Lin, H.-S.(2016).The investigation of effective strategies for developing creative science thinking.International Journal of Science Education,38(13),2133-2151.
  84. Zeldin, A. L.,Britner, S. L.,Pajares, F.(2008).A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers.Journal of Research on Science Teaching,45(9),1036-1058.
  85. Zimmerman, B. J.(2000).Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1),82-91.
  86. 李文獻, W.-S.,林美君, M.-C.,張俊彥, C.-Y.,賴信志, H.-C.,林慧敏, H.-M.(2020)。運用數位科技於戶外教育場域之科學繪本教學設計—從教學者觀點探討。科學教育月刊，428，11-31。
  87. 佘曉清（編）, H.-C.(Ed.),林煥祥（編）, H.-S.(Ed.)(2017).PISA 2015台灣學生的表現.心理=Psychological.
  88. 洪振方, J.-F.(2003)。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。
  89. 張仁和, J.-H.,陳學志, H.-C.,徐芝君, C.-C.,林耀南, Y.-N.(2009)。高中職創意競賽之團隊歷程研究─成員歧異度與團隊氣氛對團隊創造力的影響。教育與心理研究，32(4)，73-97。
  90. 教育部（編）=Ministry of Education(Ed.)(2007).德智體群美五育理念與實踐.教育部=Ministry of Education.
  91. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf 【Ministry of Education. (2014). General guidelines of curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/%E5%8D%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E7%B6%B1%E8%A6%81%E7%B8%BD%E7%B6%B1.pdf】
  92. 教育部（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要：自然與生活科技學習領域（二版）。作者。【Ministry of Education. (2010). National primary and secondary school nine-year consistent curriculum outline: Nature and technology learning areas (2nd ed.). Author.】
  93. 教育部（2021）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（修訂版）。https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/Website/11/WebContent/35922/RFile/35922/96144.pdf 【Ministry of Education. (2021). General guidelines of curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education (revised ed.). https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/Website/11/WebContent/35922/RFile/35922/96144.pdf】
  94. 黃芳銘, F.-M.(2009).結構方程模式理論與應用.五南=Wu-Nan.
  95. 鄭瑞洲, J.-C.,洪振方, J.-F.,黃台珠, T.-C.(2011)。情境興趣─制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教學月刊，340，2-10。
print cancel