本研究主要是探討學生個人因素（辯證信念、議題熟悉度與健康飲食自我效能﹚、認知處理﹙視覺行為與批判性閱讀策略﹚與認知表現﹙認知結構與訊息處理模式﹚於社會科學議題多重衝突訊息閱讀之關聯性。受試樣本共有48名大學生與研究生，皆為自願參與本研究之閱讀活動。閱讀素材為兩個與食品科技相關之議題文本，主題分別為基因改造食品與人造甜味劑-阿斯巴甜，文本內容包含各種科學論證訊息，如：定義、理由、佐證資料與推論等。本研究透過量化與質化並重的眼動研究方法，結合問卷調查和深入訪談，對受試者的閱讀認知歷程和結果進行多元資料收集與分析，包含眼動指標分析、凝視序列分析、概念流程圖分析以及自陳問卷和量表分析。根據迴歸分析結果得知，學生的個人因素能顯著預測其閱讀社會科學議題多重衝突訊息時的認知處理。在辯證信念方面，當學生傾向利用個人觀點來辯證時，可能花費較少心智努力處理定義訊息與整合支持與反對的理由；當學生傾向利用權威觀點來辯證時，可能花費較多注意力與心智努力在檢視理由與佐證資料；當學生傾向利用多元觀點來辯證時，可能花費較多注意力在整合支持的佐證資料與推論，以及支持的推論與反對的理由。辯證信念亦可顯著預測批判性閱讀策略，當學生傾向利用個人觀點來辯證時，比較不會運用批判性閱讀策略來處理衝突訊息；反之，當學生傾向利用多元觀點來辯證時，會利用批判性閱讀策略來處理衝突訊息。在議題熟悉度方面，當學生對議題熟悉度越高時，會花費較多的視覺注意力在理由訊息。在健康飲食自我效能方面，當學生有較高的健康飲食自我效能時，比較會整合支持的推論與反對的佐證資料。再者，學生的個人因素（辯證信念與健康飲食自我效能）亦可顯著預測認知表現。關於辯證信念，當學生傾向利用權威觀點來辯證時，其認知結構會有較差的整合性；當學生有較高的健康飲食自我效能時，較不會利用描述與比較的訊息處理模式來建構概念。此外，學生的認知處理亦可顯著預測其認知表現。當學生花費較多視覺注意力在整合反對的佐證資料與反對的推論，以及定義與反對的佐證資料時，可能採用較低階的訊息處理模式來建構概念；反之，當學生花費較多的視覺注意力在興趣區以外的部分時，則可能採用較高階的訊息處理模式來建構概念，也就是說學生可能會在興趣區以外的部分統整與重組不同觀點訊息以進行概念建構。本研究進一步比較不同社會科學議題熟悉度對於視覺行為之影響。其研究結果發現，相較於高熟悉度議題，學生在閱讀低熟悉度議題時，會花費較多的注意力在定義、理由與佐證資料之上，以及整合不同類型的訊息以幫助他們瞭解較不熟悉的議題。再者，學生在閱讀具不同熟悉度的議題時也顯示出不同的視覺注意力轉移模式。最後，本研究亦對於未來研究提出相關的建議。

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among students’ individual factors (justification beliefs, topic familiarity, and healthy eating self-efficacy), cognitive processes (visual behaviors and critical reading strategy), and cognitive performance (cognitive structures and information processing modes) in the reading of multiple conflicting documents on socio-scientific issues. A total of 48 university and graduate students volunteered to participate the reading task of this study. Two socio-scientific issues about food science and technology were selected as reading materials, one was about the genetically modified foods and the other was about the artificial sweetener, Aspartame. The contents of each reading material involved various reasoning information such as definition, reason, data, and inference. This study adopted both qualitative and quantitative eye-tracking methods along with in-depth interviews and self-reported surveys to conduct multidimensional data analyses such as the eye-tracking measures analyses, the fixation-based lag sequential analyses, the flow map analyses, and the self-reported questionnaires analyses. Based on the results of regression analyses, students’ individual factors can predict their cognitive processes in the reading of multiple conflicting information on the socio-scientific issues. Students who tended to use personal views to judge information may make less mental efforts to process the definition and pay less attention to integrate the supportive and the oppositive reasons. The justification beliefs can also predict critical reading strategy. Students who tended to use multiple views to judge information may tend to use critical strategies to process the conflicting information. Regarding the topic familiarity, students with the higher familiarity of an issue may pay more attention to its rationale. As for the healthy eating self-efficacy, students with high self-efficacy may integrate more often between the supportive inference and the oppositive data. In addition, students’ individual factors (justification beliefs and healthy eating self-efficacy) can predict cognitive performance. Students tended to use authoritative views to judge information may have a worse integrated cognitive structure. Furthermore, students’ cognitive processes can significantly predict their cognitive performance. Students who paid more attention to the outside area may adopt the higher order information processing modes to construct their concepts. Finally, this study further explored the visual behaviors of reading the issues with different levels of familiarity. Results show that, while reading the less familiar issue, students tended to may pay more attention to the definition, the reason, and the data as well as integrate more often between different information. Different visual transfer patterns were identified for the more familiar and the less familiar socio-scientific issues reading. Finally, this study provided some suggestions for future studies.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge.
Anderson, O. R., & Demetrius, O. J. (1993). A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondents' narrative using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 953-969. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300811.
Anderson, O. R., Love, B. C., & Tsai, M.-J. (2014). Neuroscience perspectives for science and mathematics learning in technology-enhanced learning environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 467-474. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9540-2.
Andiliou, A., Ramsay, C. M., Murphy, P. K., & Fast, J. (2012). Weighing opposing positions: Examining the effects of intratextual persuasive messages on students' knowledge and beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 113-127. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.10.001.
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007.
Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2014). From covert processes to overt outcomes of refutation text reading: The interplay of science text structure and working memory capacity through eye fixations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 493-523. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9494-9.
Ariasi, N., Hyönä, J., Kaakinen, J. K., & Mason, L. (2017). An eye-movement analysis of the refutation effect in reading science text. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 202-221. doi:10.1111/jcal.12151.
Bandura, A. (1996). Multifaced impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy-toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.
Barnett, M. A. (1989). More than meets the eye. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd Ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., & Brandmo, C. (2014). Modeling relations between students' justification for knowing beliefs in science, motivation for understanding what they read in science, and science achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2014.01.004.
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879-902. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2.
Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 58-85. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12005.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, L., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,186-204. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004.
Domenech-Betoret, F., Abellan-Rosello, L., & Gomez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-efficacy, satisfaction, and academic achievement: The mediator role of students' expectancy-value beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193.
Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49-61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003.
Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 103-120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002.
Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001.
Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142-160. doi:10.1080/00461520802178458.
Ho, J. H. N., Tsai, M.-J., Wang, C.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Prior knowledge and online inquiry-based science reading: evidence from eye tracking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 525-554. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9489-6.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378-405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Hsieh, Y.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Students' scientific epistemic beliefs, online evaluative standards, and online searching strategies for science information: The moderating role of cognitive load experience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 299-308. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9464-6.
Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, M.-J., Hou, H.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Epistemic beliefs, online search strategies, and behavioral patterns while exploring socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 471-480. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9477-1.
Hung, T. N. (2014). “What are you looking at?” An eye movement exploration in science text reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 241-260.
Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 172-176. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013.
Jian, Y.-C. (2016). Fourth graders' cognitive processes and learning strategies for reading illustrated biology texts: Eye movement measurements. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(1), 93-109. doi:10.1002/rrq.125.
Jian, Y.-C. (2017). Eye-movement patterns and reader characteristics of students with good and poor performance when reading scientific text with diagrams. Reading and Writing, 30(7), 1447-1472. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9732-6.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
Karadeniz, A. (2015). An examination of critical reading self-efficacy perceptions among the students of the faculty of education over different variables. Anthropologist, 22(2), 167-175.
Lai, M.-L., Tsai, M.-J., Yang, F.-Y., Hsu, C.-Y., Liu, T.-C., Lee, S. W. Y., . . . Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review, 10, 90-115. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.001.
Liang, J.-C., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). The relations between scientific epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning science among science-major undergraduates in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 43-59.
Lin, Y.-C., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). The relationships between epistemic beliefs in biology and approaches to learning biology among biology-major university students in Taiwan. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 796-807. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9367-y.
Lipman, T. O. (2013). Critical Reading and Critical Thinking-Study Design and Methodology: A Personal Approach on How to Read the Clinical Literature. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 28(2), 158-164. doi:10.1177/0884533612474041
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103-128. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.001.
Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137-151. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.01.001.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of integrative reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 172-187. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.004.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95-109. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011.
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 167-171. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012.
McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2011). From Aspiration to Action: A Learning Intentions Model to Promote Critical Engagement with Science in the Print-Based Media. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 691-710. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9186-1.
McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students' document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147-162. doi:10.1037/edu0000057.
Oliveras, B., Marquez, C., & Sanmarti, N. (2014). Students' Attitudes to Information in the Press: Critical Reading of a Newspaper Article With Scientific Content. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 603-626. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9397-3.
Or-Kan, S. (2017). Processing academic science reading texts through context effects: Evidence from eye movements. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 771-790. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00642a.
Parkinson, J., David, P., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2017). Self-efficacy or perceived behavioural control: Which influences consumers' physical activity and healthful eating behaviour maintenance? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(5), 413-423. doi:10.1002/cb.1641.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and selfevaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.
Shang, H.-F. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 18-42.
Sins, P. H. M., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2008). Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students' achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(1), 58-77. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.004.
Solheim, O. J. (2011). The impact of reading self-efficacy and task value on reading comprehension scores in different item formats. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 1-27. doi:10.1080/02702710903256601.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Stenseth, T. (2016). The role of students' prior topic beliefs in recall and evaluation of information from texts on socio-scientific issues. Nordic Psychology, 69(3), 127-142. doi:10.1080/19012276.2016.1198270.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic majority and ethnic minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology, 36(4), 638-657. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.920080.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders' science achievement, scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 413-425. doi:10.1080/0950069980200403.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Content analysis of Taiwanese 14 year olds' information processing operations shown in cognitive structures following physics attainment and scientific epistemological beliefs. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 125-138. doi:10.1080/0263514990170201.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000a). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193-205. doi:10.1080/001318800363836.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000b). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders' cognitive structure outcomes and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1099-1115. doi:10.1080/095006900429466.
Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Probing students' cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a meta-listening technique. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 257-268. doi:10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00029-3.
Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2001). Development of cognitive structures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1), 21-26. doi:10.1080/00219266.2001.9655791.
Tsai, C.-C., Ho, H. N. J., Liang, J.-C., & Lin, H.-M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 757-769. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.002.
Tsai, M.-J., Hou, H.-T., Lai, M.-L., Liu, W.-Y., & Yang, F.-Y. (2012). Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 58(1), 375-385. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.012.
Tsai, M.-J., Huang, L.-J., Hou, H.-T., Hsu, C.-Y., & Chiou, G.-L. (2016). Visual behavior, flow and achievement in game-based learning. Computers and Education, 98, 115-129. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.011
Van Camp, D., & Van Camp, W. (2013). Using content reading assignments in a psychology course to teach critical reading skills. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 86-99.
van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009.
Wang, C.-Y., Kuo, Y.-E., & Tsai, M.-J. (2013). Perspective effects on reading of social scientific issues. Paper presented at the 15th biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.
Wang, C.-Y., & Tsai, M.-J. (2017). Students' self-efficacy and attitudes toward web-based recipe learning in Taiwan culinary education. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(3-4), 193-204. doi:10.1007/s40299-017-0340-7.
Wang, C.-Y., Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). Multimedia recipe reading: Predicting learning outcomes and diagnosing cooking interest using eye-tracking measures. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.064.
Wang, D. L., Xu, L. L., & Chan, H. C. (2015). Understanding the continuance use of social network sites: a computer self-efficacy perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(2), 204-216. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2014.952778.
Wilson-Barlow, L., Hollins, T. R., & Clopton, J. R. (2014). Construction and validation of the healthy eating and weight self-efficacy (HEWSE) scale. Eating Behaviors, 15(3), 490-492. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.06.004.
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2005). Development of elementary school students' cognitive structures and information processing strategies under long-term constructivist-oriented science instruction. Science Education, 89(5), 822-846. doi:10.1002/sce.20068.
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. doi:10.1080/09500690601083375.
Yamg, F.-Y. (2017). Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective—An eye movement analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1347-1372. doi: 10.1002/tea.21408.
Yang, F. -Y., Chen, Y. -H., & Tsai, M. -J. (2013). How university students evaluate online information about a socio-scientific issue and the relationship with their epistemic beliefs. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 385-399.
Yang, F.-Y., Huang, R.-T., & Tsai, I.-J. (2016). The effects of epistemic beliefs in science and gender difference on university students' science-text reading: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 473-498. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9578-1.
Yang, F.-Y., Liu, S.-Y., Hsu, C.-Y., Chiou, G.-L., Wu, H.-K., Wu, Y.-T., . . . Tsai, C.-C. (2017). High-school students' epistemic knowledge of science and its relation to learner factors in science learning. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9570-6.
Yen, M.-H., & Wu, Y.-T. (2017). The role of university students' informal reasoning ability and disposition in their engagement and outcomes of online reading regarding a controversial issue: An eye tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 14-24. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.054.
Zare, M., & Mobarakeh, S. D. (2011). The relationship between self-efficacy and use of reading strategies: The case of Iranian senior high school students. Studies in Literature and Language, 3(3), 98-105.
Zhou, Q., Wang, T. T., & Zheng, Q. (2015). Probing high school students' cognitive structures and key areas of learning difficulties on ethanoic acid using the flow map method. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 589-602. doi:10.1039/c5rp00059a.