本研究透過社會性科學議題教學，探討其對學生做決定能力及採取環境行動能力之影響。本研究採取單組前後測設計，選擇研究者所任教的六年級學生，隨機選派一班35人為研究對象35人，進行六週共十二節之社會性科學議題教學。研究以問卷調查及事後訪談等方式收集相關資料，並用敘述性統計、麥內瑪考驗、t考驗等方法加以分析，研究結果發現如下：
一、社會性科學議題教學能顯著提升(p<.05)學生做決定整體能力，對於過程中「蒐集議題相關資訊」、「產生方案」、「通盤考量」、「做出決定」等能力亦同樣皆有顯著提升效果。
二、社會性科學議題教學有助於學生進行價值澄清，在「發展評判標準」時，能形成自己認為最重要的價值觀或捨棄自己認為不重要的價值觀。
三、社會性科學議題教學後，學生對於議題的解決方案優缺點的考量能更多元。
四、社會性科學議題教學能顯著提升(p<.05)學生對於「採取環境行動策略的知識」及「採取環境行動策略的技能」的認知，也能促進其採取議題相關之「實際環境行動」。

This study had the goal of exploring the effects of socioscientific issue teaching on sixth graders’ decision making and environmental action abilities. The research used the one-group pretest-posttest design. Randomly assigned one class (n= 35) in the elementary school researcher works for as experimental group and gave them a 6-weeks 12-sessions socioscientific teaching. The study utilized questionnaires and post-interview methods to collect data, then analyzed by descriptive statistics , McNemar test and t- test. The findings were as follows:
1. Socioscientific issue teaching effectively improved the ability of making overall decision for sixth graders. It also improved the ability in collecting related information of the issue, generating alternatives, comprehensive consideration, and making the decision.
2. Socioscientific issue teaching helped the students in clarifying personal value. While developing decision criteria, students formed the most important personal value or abandoned the un-important ones.
3. Sixth graders could bring solution with more versatile approaches after the socioscientific issue teaching.
4. Socioscientific issue teaching on sixth graders could effectively improve the ability in knowledge and skills of using environmental action strategies. It also effectively promoted sixth graders to put the environmental actions into practice.

一、中文部分
王永誠（2011）。以E-STS教學模組進行全球暖化相關議題教學之行動研究-以花蓮縣長橋國小為例。國立東華大學自然資源與環境教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，花蓮。
甘記豪（2004）。STS教學模組對國小六年級學生學習成效之探究─以垃圾處理爭議為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，嘉義。
李麗菁、劉湘瑤（2006）。國小教師對爭論性環境議題之抉擇制定。環境教育研究，4（1），1-32。
呂家欣（2008）。石門水庫集水區水資源議題環境教育以國小三年級進行環境-科學-技術-社會(E-STS)教學為例。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，台北。
吳靜宜（2005）。國小社會性科學議題教學之研究─台灣能源的開發與利用。國立臺中教育大學科學應用與推廣學系科學教育碩士論文。未出版，台中。
邱花妹、杜文苓（2007）。無效的風險溝通：竹科焚化爐爭議的個案研究。2007年台灣社會學年會會議論文。
林生復（2001）。引導國小學生環境行為的建構模式探討。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，台北。
林樹聲（2004a）。通識素養的培育與爭議性科學議題的教學。南華通識教育研究，1(2)，25-37。
林樹聲（2004b）重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融入與探討。國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎（二），453-465。台北：教育部。
林樹聲（2004c）。個別型計畫：應用學習環策略進行科技引起的社會爭議議題之教學。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC92-2511-S-415-003)。
林樹聲、黃柏鴻（2009）。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究─不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊，17（2），111-133。
翁琪涵（2007）。國小六年級學生面對社會性科學議題做決定之研究－以「湖山水庫興建」議題為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，嘉義。
張益國（2003）衛生掩埋場。國立成功大學環境工程學系。100年7月30日參考自http://www2.kuas.edu.tw/edu/faa7/result_91/download/course_edit/course_edit_3.pdf
張麗卿（2000）公民行動取向環境素養課程之實施成效--以"與濕地對話"全球議題課程為例。台北市立教育大學課程與教學研究所。未出版，台北。
教育部（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
陳志欣（2003）。環境議題教學對國小學童環境認知、態度及行為之影響。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，屏東。
陳佳駿（2004）。垃圾處理背景資料導讀。社區大學網路文化雜誌。100年7月30日參考自http://zine.bamboo.hc.edu.tw/issue01/special/trash-access.html
陳雅芳（2003）。應用修正式學習環於國小高年級爭議性科技議題之教學研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，嘉義。
許世璋（2003）。大學環境教育課程對於環境行動與其它環境素養變項之成效分析。科學教育學刊，11（1），97-119。
游森南（2005）。國小自然科實施STS教學之行動研究─以宜蘭五十二甲濕地議題為例。國立花蓮師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，花蓮。
楊冠政（1992）。環境行為相關變項之類別與組織。環境教育季刊，15，10-24。
楊冠政（1997）。環境教育。台北：明文書局。
靳知勤、賴志忠（2006）。以社會性科學議題探討國小六年級學童概念生態之研究—以小白鯨表演為例。中華民國第22屆科學教育學術研討會，台北。
蔡金宗（2009）。應用論證教學提升國小六年級學童議題知識、科學態度與論證品質之研究。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，嘉義。
劉湘瑤、李麗菁、蔡今中（2007/06）。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)。
鄭福田（1982）。垃圾處理。科學月刊，151。100年7月30日參考自http://210.60.226.25/science/content/1982/00070151/index.htm
盧俊良（2003）。在國小自然科實施STS教學之協同行動研究─以宜蘭雙連埤生態議題為例。國立花蓮師範學院國小科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，花蓮。
蕭怡雯（2004）。以焚化爐STS模組教學探討國小學童環境認知及態度之成效。嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。未出版，嘉義。
蕭涵之（2009）。荒野青年團義工環境知識、環境態度與環境行為之研究。台北市立教育大學環境教育與資源研究所碩士論文。未出版，台北。
蕭鴻銘（2007）。以e-STS教學模組運用於國小環境教育之學習成效研究─以汞污泥環境議題為例。國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所碩士論文。未出版，屏東。

二、英文部分
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(3), 352-377.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.
Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science from content to contention (pp.177-191). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Burnham, M., & Mitchell, R. (1992). Bioethics: An introduction. Retrieved June 7, 2012 from the World Wide Web: http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1992/bioethics_intro.html
Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: a field guide. Newbury Park : Sage Publications.
Culen, G. R. & Volk, T L. (2000). Effects of an extended case study on environmental behavior and associated variables in seventh- and eight- grade students. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(2), pp. 9-15.
deBettencourt, K. B. (2000). Science, technology, society, and the environment: Scientific literacy for the future. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin(Eds.), Science, technology and society: A sourcebook on research and practice (141-165). New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education :implications for practice. New York :Teachers College Press.
Fleming, R. (1985). How students respond to social issues in science class. In R. W. Bybee(ed.). Science/Technology/Society, 1985 yearbook of the national science teachers association , pp205-212. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association
Gambro, J., & Switzky, H. A. (1996). National survey of high school students’ environmental knowledge. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(3), 28-33.
Grace, M. M. and Ratcliffe, M.(2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
Hines, J. M. (1985). An Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-468.
Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N. K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school student’ decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in Science Education, 34, 97-111.
Hsu, S. J.,& Roth, R. E. (1999). Predicting Taiwanese Secondary Teachers' Responsible Environmental Behavior Through Environmental Literacy Variables. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 11-18.
Hungerford, H. R., & Peyton, R. B. (1976). Teach Environmental Education. Portland, Maine: J. Weston Walch.
Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. (1985). Science methods for the Elementary school. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Co., IL.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
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, 877–901.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS Case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
Leamnson, R. N. (1996). “Learning Science without Majoring in It”. Journal of College science Teaching, 25(5), 334-336.
Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter,B. E., & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-21.
Levy Nahum, T., Ben-Chaim, D. , Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES-Oriented Science Education Promote 10th-Grade Students' Decision-Making Capability?', International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1315 -1336
Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of Socio-scientific Issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
Millar, R. (1997). Science education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve? In R. Levinson, & J. Thomas, (Eds.), Science today- problem or crisis? (pp.87-101). New York:Routledge.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4) 411-423.
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
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211– 1230.
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(4), 174-181.
Ramsey, J. m. (1989). A study of the effects of issue investigation and action training on characteristics associated with environmental behavior in seventh grade students.
Ramsey, C., & Rickson, R. (1976). Environmental knowledge and attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 8(1), 10-18.
(Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale)Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(7), 1754-A.
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. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39–48.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1489.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision Making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42(1), 112–138 .
Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43-50.
Sia, A. P. (1984). An investigation of selected predictors of overt responsible environmental behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R.,＆Tomera, A. N. (1985/1986). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 31-40.
Sivek, D. J. & Hungerford, H. (1989, 1990). Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 35-40.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J.,& D’Costa, A. (1995). Designing a likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 14-20.
Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial issues: an evaluation. Educational Review, 36(2), 121-129.
Tanner, T.(1998). Choosing the right subjects in significant life experience research. Environmental Education Research, 4, 399-417
Wessel, M. R. (1980). Science and conscience. New York: Columbia University 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.
Zeidler, D. L.(ed.)(2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zeidler, L. D., Walker, A. K., Ackett, A. W., Simmon, L. M., (2002). Tangled up in view: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
Zoller, U. (1990). Environmental education and the university: The “problem solving–decision making act” within a critical system-thinking framework. Higher Education in Europe, 15(4), 5–14.
Zoller, U., & Scholz, R. W. (2004). The HOCS paradigm shift from disciplinary knowledge (LOCS) to interdisciplinary evaluative system thinking (HOCS): What should it take in science-technology-environment-society-oriented courses, curricula and assessment? WaterScience and Technology, 49(8), 27–36.