探究 (inquiry) 是現代科學教育的重要核心，而探究學習活動會隨著學習內容的資訊量以及認知開放程度有所不同，最終目標希望學習者有能力進行「開放式探究」(open inquiry)。科學展覽 (Science Fair)是探究學習活動中最常見的開放式探究活動。然而，科展活動在台灣的教育現場面臨許多困難與挑戰，沒有經驗的教師無法有效引導學生進行探究活動，而且專業知能不足的教師無法建立學生對於科學展覽的概念。為了幫助科展探究的教與學，本研究旨在發展一個「網路科展探究系統」（Online Science Fair Inquiry System，OSFIS）輔助科展教師進行教學活動，本研究也進一步評估OSFIS是否能符合科展教師的需求。在進行系統評估時，本研究採用便利取樣方法，針對52名國小科展教師進行訪談與問卷調查，並蒐集受訪教師的背景變項以及系統操作回饋。研究結果發現受訪教師對於OSFIS所提供探究學習歷程架構與鷹架功能在知覺有用性、知覺易用性和使用意願皆給予正面回饋，且認為OSFIS有助於科展教師與學生瞭解科展歷程以及突破教學時間不足的限制，能夠紀錄科展指導歷程。除此之外，更彌補了新手教師的專業知能不足之處，而進一步的分析結果也顯示科展專業知能、環境的限制因素以及在網路教學環境中的信心程度有可能會影響科展教師對於OSFIS的感知。本研究進一步從訪談中獲得受訪教師對系統的改善建議，包含增加認知鷹架功能，加強互動與溝通鷹架功能，介面設計需貼近國小學生的理解程度。最後，本研究依據結果與討論提出教學實務、系統設計及未來研究之建議。

Science fair is one of the most common open inquiry activities which can facilitate learners to construct their science knowledge and develop science literacy in school. However, there are a great deal of difficulties and challenges in Taiwan’s education fair. For example, novice teachers may neither effectively guide learners to conduct science fair inquiry activities nor facilitate learners to construct related knowledge. To scaffold teachers’ instruction and students’ learning in science fair inquiry, the “Online Science Fair Inquiry System” (OSFIS) was developed in this study. After the development of the OSFIS, this study also conducted a series of system evaluations on it. To this end, both questionnaire survey and tape-recorded interviews were conducted. The participants of the system evaluation in this study were 52 elementary school teachers. The participants expressed satisfactory perceived usefulness and ease of use of the OSFIS. Also, they had high intention to use the OSFIS. Moreover, this study reveals that the OSFIS may facilitate both teachers and students to understand the process of science fair inquiry, solve the limitation of activities times, record the portfolio during inquiry activities, and complement teachers’ professional knowledge. Results also indicated that the participants’ perception toward OSFIS might be influenced by environmental limitation, and their professional knowledge of science fair and confidence. Finally, some suggestions and implications for teachers to conduct open inquiry activities, system design, and future work are also proposed.

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science education, 88(3), 397-419.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Benchmarks for science literacy (pp. 100-119).New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students'' context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939-954.
Ellis, R. K. (2009). Field guide to learning management systems. ASTD Learning Circuits.
Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2006). Measuring Students’ Scientific Content and Inquiry Reasoning. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, Bloomington IN, USA.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 313-350.
Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. A. (2009). IQWST Materials: Meeting the Challenges of the 21 st Century 12.
Kyriazi, E., & Constantinou, C. (2004). The Science Fair as a Means for Developing Investigative Skills in Elementary School.
Lee, H. S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology‐enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71-90.
Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517-538.
Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, Feb 2002, 34-37.
Masiello, I., Ramberg, R., & Lonka, K. (2005). Attitudes to the application of a Web-based learning system in a microbiology course. Computers & Education, 45(2), 171-185.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional science, 26(1), 49-63.
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496-508.
Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (2008). The Technology Fair: a project-based learning approach for enhancing problem solving skills and interest in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 79-100.
National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.
Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285-1296.
Pahl, C. (2003). Managing evolution and change in web-based teaching and learning environments. Computers & Education, 40(2), 99-114.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., . . . Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244.
Quintana, C., & Zhang, M. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196.
Rodrigues, S. (2004). Digital divides: e-literacy in science classrooms when using information communication technologies. Science Education International, 16(4), 303-323.
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10, 151-182.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). THE ROLE OF TUTORING IN PROBLEM SOLVING*. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Zhang, M. L., & Quintana, C. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students'' online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181-196. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016
ZK框架-Ajax開發領域　(ZK: Ajax without the JavaScript Framework)。Henri Chen, Robbie Cheng. 蔡毅 譯。北京：電子工業出版社。2009.01。 ISBN: 978-7-121-07461-5。
洪振方。(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所副教授。高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
徐佳璋。（2007）。臺灣中小學科展活動之實務探究。科學教育(297)，2-15。
教育部。（2008）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部與國科會。（2003）。科學教育白皮書. 台北：教育部。
陳斐卿、江火明、林惠倫與王宏仁。（2001）。網路學習歷程科展的環境設計。論文發表於中國視聽教育學會「知識經濟與教育發展」國際學術研討會，國立台灣師範大學，台北。
黃鴻博與郭重吉。(1999)。STS 教育理論的接納與實踐－一個國小教師的個案研究：科學教育學刊。