本研究欲瞭解大專學生在社會性科學議題範疇中的科學知識觀、線上資訊搜尋策略與論證能力之間的關係。藉由「電磁波危害」之正反立場的新聞報導的思考，來探討學生在面對社會性科學議題之情境時，其科學知識觀、線上資訊搜尋策略、搜尋成果之展現，以及搜尋前後的立場改變和論證表現之情形。

本研究設計為單一組別前後測，採用便利取樣的方式來進行樣本的選取，研究對象為48位台北縣市大專院校之學生。實驗流程主要分為搜尋前和搜尋後兩個階段，搜尋前先請學生閱讀「電磁波危害」之正反立場的兩篇新聞報導，並填寫科學知識觀量表和論證學習單以作為前測之用，其後則進行線上資訊的搜尋；搜尋後則請學生填寫線上資訊搜尋策略量表和論證學習單，以作為後測之用。

本研究之結果可分為三大面向來加以說明：
一、 大專學生的科學知識觀、線上資訊搜尋策略與搜尋成果之整體現況。
整體而言，大專學生對於「來源」的知識觀點較偏向實證取向，而對於「控制」和「選擇主要概念」這兩項線上資訊搜尋策略的表現較佳；在搜尋成果部分可發現，學生參考非科學類網站的平均數量高於科學類網站。
二、 大專學生對社會性科學議題的論證能力之表現情形。
學生在搜尋後的論證表現顯著優於搜尋前的論證表現，然而，在論證過程中能夠有效使用反駁或科學證據來強化其主張的學生並不多。
三、 大專學生的科學知識觀、線上搜尋策略、搜尋成果與論證能力之關係。
科學知識觀、線上資訊搜尋策略以及搜尋後的論證能力三者之間具有顯著的正向關係；而搜尋成果的「非科學性網站」與科學知識觀和線上資訊搜尋策略呈現顯著的負向關係。

因此，根據本研究的結果可知，當學生的科學知識觀較偏向建構主義，以及線上資訊搜尋策略的能力較佳時，其搜尋後的論證能力亦會有較好的表現。

The purpose of this study is to examine university students’ scientific epistemological views (SEV), use of online search strategies and argumentation ability, when they encounter the socioscientific issues. Forty-eight participants of this study came from different universities in the northern Taiwan. All participants were required to take SEV questionnaire, Online Information Searching Strategies Inventory (OISSI), and a reasoning survey with open-ended questions designed to assess argument skills. The reasoning survey contained some controversial arguments revolved around a socioscientific issue, that is, “Whether the electromagnetic wave (EMV) could cause cancers?” Students were administrated to take the SEV questionnaire first and then proceed to the reasoning survey. The survey started with two conflicting news reports about the effects of EMV on human health. Students had to read the reports and then make judgments about the EMV effects. Afterward, these students were led to an online search task. After finishing the online information search, participants were asked to reason again about the target issue. The OISSI was conduced last. Correlation, One-way and Chi-square analyses were implemented to find out the possible relations among variables.

The analyses of the study revealed that the dimension of “Source” of students’ SEV was less constructivist-oriented. As far as OISSI was concerned, the dimensions of “Control” and “Select main idea” received higher scores than other dimensions did. Students’ argument skills improved after the online search task, but the performances of rebuttal and the use of science evidence remained undeveloped. By regression, it was found that students’ SEV and the use of online search strategies could predict students’ performances of argument skills.

In conclusion, the result of the study suggests that when university students posses constructivist-oriented SEV, and have developed better online search strategies, they would produce better argumentation results.

中文部份：
林佳慶(2005)。網路學習環境中之科學學習：科學認識觀與網路搜尋策略之探討。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
吳玫緗(2007)。科學知識觀與學生在社會科學性議題論證之相關性。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
邱皓政(2007)。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。台北：五南。
姜志忠、張惠博、林淑梤、鄭一亭(2006)。物理史融入教學對提升學生科學認識
論瞭解及其學習成效之研究。科學教育學刊，14(6)，637-661。
翁正鴻、楊芳瑩（2001）：應用STS 教學策略於大學通識課程之研究。論文彙編：第三屆STS 科學教育研討會。國立台灣師範大學。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
黃柏鴻(2007)。提昇國小六年級學生論證能力之行動研究—以社會性科學議題為
例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
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。
潘慧玲(2003)。教育研究的取徑：概念與應用。台北：高等教育。

英文部份：
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.
Ackermann, E. & Hartman, K. (2005). Searching and researching on the internet and
the world wide web (4rd ed.), Wilsonville, O.R.: Franklin Beedle & Associates.
American heritage dictionary. (2001). New York: Random House, Inc.
von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008).Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101-131.
Bilal, D. & Kirby, J. (2002). Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults as Web users. Information Processing and Management, 38(5), 649–670.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
Corredor, J. (2006). General and domain-specific influence of prior knowledge on
setting of goals and content use in museum websites. Computers and Education, 47(2), 207-212.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation
discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2, 1-14.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognition monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
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.
Hofer, B. J. (2001). Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–382.
Hölscher, C. & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of internet experts and
newbies. Computer Network, 33, 337-346.
Hsieh-Yee, I. (2001). Research on web search behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 23, 167–185.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation an decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Kim, K. S. & Allen, B. (2002). Cognitive and task influences on web searching behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 2, 109-119.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical think in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222-232.
Knefelkamp, L. L. and Slepitza, R. (1978). A cognitive-development model of career development: An adaptation of the Perry scheme. In C. A. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging development in college students. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 135-150.
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.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 178–181.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions about the nature of
science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
29(4), 331-359.
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.
Maichionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in the electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University.
Mason, L., & Scirica F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about 108
controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16 (5), 492-509.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
Moore, W. S. (1991). The Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development: An introduction to the model and major assessment approaches. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Navarro-Prieto, R., Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1999). Cognitive strategies in web searching. Retrieved February 1, 2010 from Web site: http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/hfweb/proceedings/navarro-prieto/index.html.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the
pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
Nussbaum, M. E., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Park, Y. & Black, J. B. (2007). Identifying the impact of domain knowledge and
cognitive style on web-based information search behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36 (1), 15-37.
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.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Pilar, M., & Fimenez-Aleixandre. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge
consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
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., & 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.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence
in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-33.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effevt of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
Schommer-Aikins M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5-20.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:
Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence
knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473-489.
Tsai, C.-C (2004). Information commitments in web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 105-112.
Tsai, C.-C. & Chuang, S.-C. (2005). The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 97–100.
Tsai, M. -J. (2009).Online information searching strategy inventory (OISSI): A quick version and a complete version. Computers & Education, 53, 473–483.
Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43-50.
Tseng, J. C. R., Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, P.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Meta-Analyzer: A web-based environment for analyzing student information searching behaviors. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control (IJICIC), 5(3), 567-579.
Tu, Y.-W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategies and outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1142–1153.
von Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A word of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158.
Wang, J., Spencer, K. & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in
learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37(1), 46-56.
Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behavior of undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research, 25(2), 127-142.
Wilson, T.D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49-55.
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, 1163-1187.
Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 28-35.
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 about a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31, 65-84.
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(2), 221-244.
Yang, F.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Reasoning about science-related uncertain issues and epistemological perspectives among children. Instructional Science, 38(4), 325-354
Yang, F.-Y., Tsai, M.-J. & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). University students’ reasoning on conflicting science issues and judgments about online information. Paper presented in the biannul meeting of European Association of Research in Learning and Instrutction (EARLI), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Zeidler, D.L.; Osborne, J.; Erduran, S. Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
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.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.