本研究主要探討學生所展現的社會科學性議題決策模式與社會科學性議題非制式推理模式在不同類型(物理領域的核能議題、生物領域的基因議題)的社會科學性議題情境之下是否有差異。並進一步分析，在知識觀的引導下，學生的社會科學性議題決策模式和非制式推理模式與網路資訊判準，兩者的關係為何？其次，本研究亦分析網路搜尋策略與網路資訊判準之相關性，以及學生網路搜尋議題相關資訊後，其立場保留或轉換與網路搜尋策略的相關性。
本研究的研究對象為台北市立某高級工業職業學校三年級學生，總計參與本研究的學生共有三個班級101位學生，以Meta-Analyzer系統進行網路資訊判準問卷填答、開放式問卷填答與網路搜尋的動作，藉此收集學生網路資訊判準、社會科學性議題決策模式與非制式推理模式以及網路搜尋策略的資料。網路資訊判準包括正確性標準、實用性標準以及搜尋策略，「多重資訊來源」向度與「權威性」向度組成正確性標準，「內容」向度與「功能」向度組成實用性標準，「精緻化探索」向度與「相配度」向度組成搜尋策略。最後將學生填答開放式問卷的質性資料轉換為量化資料以供後續分析。
研究結果顯示：
(一)大多數學生在兩個社會科學性議題下都傾向於採取理性的決策模式。
(二)大部分的學生在兩個社會科學性議題下都展現了一致的決策模式。
(三)學生在核能議題上所表現的非制式推理能力較基因議題來的好。
(四)學生在接收到網路資訊後，大多數的學生堅持保留原有的立場。
(五)採取理性決策模式的學生在網路資訊判準實用性標準中的「內容」向度平均值顯著高於直覺決策模式的學生；而採取直覺決策模式的學生在搜尋策略中的「相配度」向度則顯著高於理性決策模式的學生。
(六)非制式推理能力較好的學生在網路資訊判準搜尋策略中的「精緻化探索」向度平均值顯著高於非制式推理能力差的學生。
最後，本研究將根據研究結果進行討論，並對教師教學與後續研究提出建議。

This study first investigated the differences between students’ decision-making modes and informal reasoning modes in two different kinds of socio-scientific issues, the nuclear power issue, and the genetic therapy issue. Then, under the constraint of students’ epistemological beliefs, this study explored the relationships between their decision-making modes of socio-scientific issue and their information commitments, and between their informal reasoning modes of socio-scientific issues and their information commitments. Furthermore, this study explored the relationship between students’ information commitments and their online information searching strategies, and examined whether their positions of the two socio-scientific issues changed because of the practice of online search.
study also analyzed the relationship between students’ decision-making modes and informal reasoning modes on socio-scientific issues and their information commitments, which guided by epistemological beliefs. Furthermore, it also analyzed the relationship between information commitments and online information searching strategies. This study also attempts to explore the relationship between students’ position remained or changed and their online information searching strategies.
The sample of this study included 101 vocational senior high school students from three different classes. The study used the Meta-Analyzer system to record students’ responses to the Information Commitments Survey (ICs), their responses to another open-ended questionnaire, and the processes of their online searching in order to collect the students’ decision-making of the socio-scientific issues, their informal reasoning of the socio-scientific issues, their information commitments and their online searching strategies. This study used six criteria to assess the students’ information commitments: multiple sources as accuracy, authority as accuracy, content as usefulness, technical issues as usefulness, elaboration and exploration as searching strategy and match as searching strategy. The qualitative data collected from the open-ended questionnaire were transformed into quantitative indicators for further analysis.
The main results of the study were summarized below:
1. Most of the students adopted an evidence-based decision mode in both socio-scientific issues.
2. Most of the students adopted a consistent decision mode in both socio-scientific issues.
3. Regarding the informal reasoning ability, the students performed significantly better in the nuclear issue than the genetic therapy issue.
4. Most of the students kept their initial position even after receiving relevant online information.
5. The students in different decision-making mode groups showed significant differences of information commitments in “content” and “match”.
6. The students who performed better in informal reasoning ability had a significantly higher score in information commitments “elaboration” than those who performed worse in informal reasoning ability.
Finally, based on the previous findings, this study provides some suggestions for science teaching practice and for future studies.

Keywords: Socio-scientific issues, informal reasoning, decision-making, information commitments, on-line searching strategies.

吳穎沺 (2007)。高中生對於核能發電爭議之非制式推理思考－兼探網路探究活動之影響。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
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。15，335-356。
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
Bilal, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 646–665.
Bilal, D. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine. II. Cognitive and physical behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 52(2), 118–137.
Bilal, D. (2002). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine. III. Cognitive and physical behaviors on fully self-generated tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 53(13), 1170–1183.
Dawson, V. M. & Venville, G. (2009). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.
Hewson, P. W. (1985). Epistemological commitments in the learning of science: examples from dynamics. European Journal of Science Education 7, 163–172.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal Epistemology Research: Implications for Learning and Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341 – 368.
Huges, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science– technology– society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426– 440.
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2008). A novel approach for assisting teachers in analyzing student web searching behaviors. Computers & Education, 51, 926-938.
King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco,CA, Jossey-Bass.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
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.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.
Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). The information commitments toward web information among medical students in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 162－172.
Lin, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring the Structural Relationships between High School Students' Scientific Epistemological Views and their Utilization of Information Commitments toward Online Science Information. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2001-2022.
Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 727–758.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (An NSTA position statement.) Washington, DC: NSTA.
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, 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, 174–181.
Perkins, D.N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science education, 92, 543–559.
Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1085-1099.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue, International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). 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. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71 – 93.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tsai, C. C. (2000). 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, 1099–1115.
Tsai, C. C. (2001). The interpretation construction design model for teaching science and its applications to Internet-based instruction in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 401–415.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Information commitments in web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105–112.
Tsai, C. C. (2008a). Standards of judging online information, searching strategies and learning outcomes from online inquiry science activities. In Y.J. Lee & A.L. Tan (Eds.) Science education at the nexus of theory and practice (pp. 135-154). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Tsai, C. C. (2008b). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures. (pp. 273-285). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Tsai, C. C., & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621–1638.
Tu, Y. W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C. C., (2008). Eight graders’ web searching strategies and outcome: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1142－1153.
Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Wood, P. K. (1983). “Inquiring Systems and Problem Structure: Implication for Cognitive Development.” Human Development, 26, 249-265.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). The information commitments: Evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 374–385.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007a). High School Students' Informal Reasoning on a Socio-Scientific Issue: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007b). Developing an information commitment survey for assessing students’ web information searching strategies and evaluative standards for web materials. Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 120-132.
Yager, R. E. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Yang, F. Y. & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244.
Yang, F. Y. (2004). Exploring high school students’ use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making, International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1345–1364.
Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31, 65-84.
Zaphiris, P., Shneiderman, B., & Norman, K. L. (2002). Expandable indexes vs. sequential menus for searching hierarchies on the World Wide Web. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(3), 201–207.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing Reflective Judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46(1), 74－101.
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, 343–367.