本研究主要探討透過虛擬實境(Virtual reality, VR)介入5E探究式教學(5E inquiry model)後，學生在國中生物科學習成效之影響。以桃園市某國中七年級學生作為研究對象進行六週準實驗研究法的教學實驗，選取研究者教學之兩個班級作為研究樣本，實驗組(N=30)以5E探究式教學結合虛擬實境，而對照組(N=28)僅以5E探究式教學進行實驗。
本教學實驗以七年級南一版自然科學課程「人體如何獲得養份」單元作為研究主題，於教學實驗開始前對於實驗組與控制組進行前測。在實驗結束後，以學習成效量表及學習態度量表進行結果統計分析；另外也針對實驗組高低成就學生進行訪談，以了解其對於虛擬實境介入5E探究式教學之教學想法與感受。
根據統計結果分析及教師與學生訪談之研究結果，整理成以下結論：
（一）實驗組與對照組兩組之學習成效沒有顯著差異，但皆能有效的提昇。
（二）高成就學生在兩種教學法間有顯著差異，而低成就學生在兩種教學法間無顯著差異。
（三）實驗組與對照組兩組學習態度量表沒有顯著差異。
（四）低成就學生在學習動機量表有顯著性差異，實驗組與對照組高低成就學生在群體自我效能量表均有顯著性差異。
根據研究結果建議未來後續的研究可將虛擬實境應用於生物科不同單元或不同年級及領域，並因應十二年國教課程安排進行跨科跨領域合作、擴充其應用性。

The purpose of the study is to assess the impact on the learning process seventh graders in junior high school by integrating virtual reality(VR) with 5E inquiry model in biological learning. Quasi-experiment were applied on first grade students in junior high school in Taoyuan for six weeks. Two classes of students were then selected randomly assigned to the experimental group and the control group.
The experimental group(N=30) was taught by inquiry teaching with virtual reality teaching aids, and the control group(N=28) was only taught by inquiry teaching.
The six-week experiment content is focused on a biology unit, How Do Humans Get Nutrients. Both the experimental group and control group are required to take pre-test and end-test. Assessed by learning achievement scale, and attitude of technical learning scale. Furthermore, the students who are engaged in the experiment will be interviewed in order to comprehend their learning and thoughts.
Conclusions are provided as follows:
1.Students’s learning performance in both experimental group and control group are improved but show no significant difference.
2.There is significant difference of learning performance in high-achieving students between experimental group and control group (i.e. to learning 5E inquiry model with and without virtual reality teaching aids), but there is no significant difference for low-achieving students.
3.There is no significant difference on student’s learning attitude between experimental group and control group.
4.There is no significant difference for low-achieving students on the effect of learning motivation, but there is significant differences for high-achieving students on the effect of self-efficacy.

ㄧ、中文部分
方吉正（1998）。情境學習理論之主要觀點剖析。教育資料文摘，42(4)，185-192。
吳清山，林天祐著，教育新辭書，臺北：高等教育，民94。
吳清山、林天祐（2004）。行動學習。教育研究月刊，125，156-156。
李咏吟、單文經（1995）。教學原理。台北市：遠流出版公司。
周宣光（2000）。虛擬實境系統開發模式與應用。技術學刊，15(1)，79-87。
林政宏（1997）。深入虛擬實境VR。臺北市：碁峰資訊。
邱美虹（2000）。評介美國評量新標準：科學實作部分。科學教育月刊，第二二八期，2-15。
侯佳典（2007）。5E 探究式學習環教學對國二學生浮力概念改變成效之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學物理學系，彰化市。
高廣孚（1991）。杜威教育思想。臺北市：水牛出版社。
張文哲（2008）。Robert E. Slavin 著。教育心理學理論與實際。台北：學富文化。
張世忠(2000)。建構教學—理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華書局。
張春興（2004）。教育心理學：三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張雅雯（2019）。虛擬實境結合悅趣化數位學習對國小五年級學生數學體積單元學習成效、學習態度與學習動機之影響。國立屏東大學資訊科學系碩士論文，未發表，屏東市。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要─自然與生活科技學習領域。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2018）。108 年「國中小行動學習推動計畫」 實施方案
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—自然科學領域
梁朝雲、李恩東(1998)。虛擬實境的發展與種類，視聽教育雙月刊，第四十卷，第三期，第18-26頁。
黃光雄（1996）。教育概論。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃松源、王美芬（2001）。國小自然科建構取向教學之行動研究。科學教育研究與發展季刊，2001，57-84。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。臺北市：五南。
黃茂在和吳敏而（2016）科學素養與課程統整。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊，第五期。
楊秀停、王國華（2007）。實施引導式探究教學對於國小學童學習成效之影響。科學教育學刊，15，439-459。
靳知勤（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，第十五卷，第六期，627-646。
甄曉蘭（1995）。合作行動研究—進行教育研究的另一種方式。嘉義師院學報，10，119-146。
鄭昭明（2006）。認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北: 桂冠出版。
龔僑立(2007）。合作學習、電腦概念構圖與學習風格對自然科學習成效之研究—以生物繁殖概念為例。臺北市立教育大學自然科學教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。 
二、英文部分
Bibens, R. F. (2001). Using inquiry effectively. Theory into practice, 19(2), 87-92.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning . Educational Researcher.18(1), 32-42.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH, USA: Heinemann.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Dewey, J. (1909).Moral principles in education. Boston, New York, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco: Hougton Mifflin Company.
Dewey, J. (1993). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14.
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A.(1991). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). Conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses, Computers & Education, 69, 121-130.
Karplus, R., & Butts, D. P. (1977). Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 14(2), 169-175.
Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A New Look at Elementary School Science: Science curriculum improvement study. Rand McNally, Chicago.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral. Cambridge university press.
Mattheis, F.E., & Nakayama, G. (1988). Effects of a laboratory-centered inquiry program on laboratory skills, science process skills, and understanding of science knowledge in middle grades students.
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203-223.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. National Committee on Science Education Standards, & Assessment. (1994). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Oliver-Hoyo, M., Allen, D., & Anderson, M. (2004). Inquiry-guided instruction: Practical issues of implementation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 20-24.
Pella, M. O., O’ Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(3),199-208.
Pimentel, K., & Teixeira, K. (1994). Virtual Reality Through the New Looking Glass. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Scharmann, L. C. (1991). Teaching angiosperm reproduction by means of the learning cycle. School Science and Mathematics. 91(3), 100-104.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Shen, B. J. (1975). Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day, Communication of scientific information, 44-52.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of educational research, 50(2), 315-342.
Suchman, L. (1993). Response to Vera and Simon's situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 71-75.
Trowbridge, L. W., & Bybee, R. W. (1990). Becoming a secondary school science teacher(5th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to Radical Constructivism. The Invented Reality. New York: Norton.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.