- 期刊
- OpenAccess
高中生在社會性科學議題決策中的反思與評估
Senior High School Students' Reflection and Evaluation of Decision-Making Process Regarding a Socioscientific Issue
摘要
本個案研究研發融入後設認知問題的社會性科學議題（Socioscientific Issue, SSI）導向決策課程，並探討高中生的反思與評估表現。研究以便利取樣邀請66位來自臺北市某兩校高中的學生參與。研究資料來自學生在前、後測及學習單的填答內容，透過集群分析、共變異數分析、相依t考驗等統計分析，探討學生在課程中反思與評估能力的表現，以及其對決策能力與決策學習成效的影響。本研究以集群分析，依學生學習單中的反思與評估表現差異，將其分成四組：決策可行性／提出配套組、利弊權衡／提出配套組、利弊權衡／無關回應組、推理合理性／提出配套組。結果發現，利弊權衡／提出配套組、利弊權衡／無關回應組在課程中的從多元面向考量議題、利用補償性方法權衡方案表現顯著高於決策可行性／提出配套組，且這兩組經課程後的決策能力亦有顯著提升。推理合理性／提出配套組課程中的考量多元面向表現顯著優於決策可行性／提出配套組。基於研究結果，本研究建議未來發展後設認知引導問題，需具體引導學生深入反思SSI決策的本質，從決策過程的利弊權衡的角度進行評估與反思，以達到提升學生決策能力之目的。
並列摘要
This study aimed to investigate senior high school students' reflection and evaluation of decision-making toward a Socioscientific Issue (SSI) and how such decision-making influences students' decision-making performance. Researchers developed an SSI-based decision-making curriculum embedded with metacognition prompts as a platform to explore students' reflection and evaluation on their decision-making toward the SSI. Convenient sampling was used to select 66 students from two senior high schools located in Taipei City to take part in this study. Cluster analysis, a one-way analysis of covariance, and a pair t-test were used to analyze students' responses from a pre- and post-test instrument and student worksheet. Major results indicate that students' reflection and evaluation could be clustered into four clusters: (1) a feasibility/ complementary group, (2) a trade-off/complementary group, (3) a trade-off/irrelevant group, and (4) a reasonableness/complementary group. Students in the trade-off/complementary and trade-off/ irrelevant groups showed significantly higher performance in the curriculum than students in the feasibility/complementary group, especially when considering multiple dimensions of the SSI and when using compensatory rules to make a decision. Students in the two groups showed significant progression in their decision-making ability at the end of the instructional treatment in contrast to the students in the feasibility/complementary group and reasonableness/ complementary group. In contrast to the feasibility/complementary group, the reasonableness/ complementary group demonstrated significantly higher performance when considering multiple dimensions of the SSI. These results suggest that the direct and explicit metacognitive prompts were successful in engaging students in deep reflection to elaborate on these students' decision-making abilities, especially to engage students in evaluating and reflecting on the usage of trade-off analysis.