與他人共同合作解決問題，是21世紀的關鍵能力，而科學更是各國強盛的關鍵，然而科學相關問題必然涉及諸多變項之交互影響與複雜的科學概念，學習者可以透過合作調整變數進行電腦模擬，觀察過程幫提升解決問題的能力。
本研究目的在了解學習者在合作問題解決中所表現的歷程，進一步探討學習者不同合作品質與不同學習方法的學習者歷程差異，協助教師能培養學習者合作問題解決能力。
本研究受試者為高中學生共24名，用簡報教學線上合作科學問題解決系統操作，時間為一小時，對所有學習者施以一小時的「合作問題解決概念教學」，授課內容著重於引導學習者成員嘗試透過對於意義的共同建構、反思、溝通、修正來解決問題。後以一活動請學習者實際操作，時間亦為一小時，之後正式給予受試者一簡單難度活動與一困難活動，其活動時間各為一小時，應用電腦模擬協助學生進行合作科學問題解決活動，透過蒐集受試者在電腦內的歷程資料，探討學習者合作科學問題解決的行為模式，使用PISA2015 合作問題解決評量架構做為分析標準，透過運用滯後序列分析對話串內容，討論其行為模式之間的差異，本研究亦將學習者分別依其學習方法與在合作問題解決活動中所感受的合作品質進行分組，進一步比較不同組別學習者的合作問題解決歷程之差異。
研究結果顯示學習者經歷合作問題解決之概念教學後，在簡單的問題解決動中，其較容易形成假設。而在低合作品質小組之學習者在問題解決歷程中需要較多的溝通建立共同的理解。而深層學習方法組之學習者在問題解決歷程中著重假設進而解決問題，而淺層學習方法組之學習者透過討論套用公式與建構共同理解方式去解決問題。最後亦對未來之研究方向提供建議。

Knowing how to solve problems with peers collaboratively has become one of the most important skills in the 21st century. Obviously, science-related problems-solving concerns the interaction of many variables and complex scientific concepts. To enable the learners to have the ability of problems-solving, learners need to learn to adjust variables and observe the process in the context of computer simulations. The purpose of the study was to explore the learners’ differences in their behavioral patterns of problem solving and different learning methods. The results might be used to help teachers acquire the ability to help learners the ability to solve problems collaboratively.
The participants of this study were 24 senior high school students who were in the context of computer simulations to solve assigned problems. First, they went through one-hour collaborative scientific problem-solving activities. The activities focused on guiding the participants to solve problems by constructing, reflecting, communicating, and modifying. Then the students used the theory they learned from the aforementioned activities to finish a one-hour practice activity. At the end, they were given a simple and a hard activity to do in an hour respectively. This study adopted the conceptual framework of Collaborative Problem solving skills for PISA 2015 to conduct data analysis through the use of Lag Sequence Analysis（LSA）of the conversation cluster.
This study also categorized the student into different groups based on approaches learning, as well as their perceined collaboration quality doing Collaborative Problem solving activity. The results showed that learners were more likely to construct hypotheses after they experienced the instruction of collaborative problems-solving. In the problem-solving process, the low-quality of collaboration group tented to spend more time on communication to build a common understanding than the high-quality of collaboration group. The group of deep learning approaches focused on the hypotheses and solved the problems in the course of problems-solving, while the group of superficial learning approaches tried to solve the problems by discussing the formulas and constructing the common understanding. Finally, suggestions for the future research are provided.

中文部分
王孟茹 （2015）。一對一人機互動國小中年級學童合作問題解決能力電腦化評量。國立臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
邱秉誠（2016）。個人電腦模擬及合作電腦模擬對於合作科學問題解決之影響。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
呂瑄瑄 （2015）。一對二人機互動國小中年級學童合作問題解決能力電腦化評量。國立臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
林侑萱（2017）。探索學生在科學情境真人線上合作問題解決之行為轉移模式 ──以臺中市八年級某班學生為例。國立臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所碩士論文，台中市。
林宜儂（2016）。探索科學情境合作問題解決行為模式。國立臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所碩士論文，台中市。
科技部（2016）。科技部與教育部聯合記者會新聞資料--PISA 2015臺灣學生的表現。資料來源：科技部新聞稿 2016 年。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華書局。
張春興（1997）。現代心理學。台北市：東華書局。
教育部（2003）。科學教育白皮書。臺北：教育部。
教育部（2008a）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2008b）。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。
黃玟捷（2017）。探索臺灣15歲學生在科學情境人機選擇對話模式下合作問題解決之行為。國立臺中教育大學教育資訊與測驗統計研究所碩士論文，台中市。
黃茂在、陳文典（2004）。「問題解決」的能力。教育科學月刊，273，21-41。
吳惠琴（2016）。多代理人互動之合作問題解決 開放式對話電腦化評量。亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
吳穎沺 （2003）。建構主義式的科學學習活動對國小高年級學生認知結構之影響。國立交通大學教育研究所碩士論文。
彭郁翔（2018）。不同電腦模擬模式對於合作科學問題解決之影響：以眼動進行分析。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
溫采婷（2017）。科學模擬遊戲學習歷程之學習分析。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
劉晨鐘、吳穎沺、張銘華、張家榮、范姜士燻、邱秉誠、黃福坤、趙伯堯、張志康、賴佳禧、吳素妏 （2015）。電腦模擬支援合作科學問題解決。第十一屆台灣數位學習發展研討會（TWELF 2015）。台灣。
劉湘瑤 （2016）。科學探究的教學與評量。科學研習，55（2），19-27。
 
英文部分
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries.
Bandura, A. （2002）. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51（2）, 269–290.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis: Cambridge university press.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. .（2012）. Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. （1984）. The IDEAL problem solver. New York:W. H. Freeman.
Chiou, G.-L., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. （2013）. High school students’ approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 31, 1-15.
Chen, P., & Zimmerman, B. （2007）. A cross-national comparison study on the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75（3）, 221-244.
Conley, A. M. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. （2004）. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29（2）, 186-204.
Chung C.-W., Lee C.-C. and Liu C.-C. （2013）. Investigating face-to-face peer interaction patterns in a collaborative Web discovery task: the benefits of a shared display. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,29, 188-206 .
D'zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of abnormal psychology, 78(1), 107.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
De Luca, V. W. (1992). Survey of technology education problem-solving activities. Technology Teacher, 51(5), 26-30.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath, 35(64), 690-698.
Dormido, S., & Esquembre, F. (2003). The quadruple-tank process: An interactive tool for control education. Paper presented at the European Control Conference (ECC), 2003.
Eckhardt, M., Urhahne, D., Conrad, O., & Harms, U. (2013). How effective is instructional support for learning with computer simulations? Instructional Science, 41(1), 105-124.
Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International journal of educational research, 41(6), 407-428.
Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the learning sciences, 22(3), 340-374.
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 313-323.
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.
Kim, M., & Tan, H. T. (2013). A collaborative problem-solving process through environmental field studies. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 357-387.
Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2014). The effects of scaffolded simulation-based inquiry learning on fifth-graders' representations of the greenhouse effect. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 406-424.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 341-359.
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), 561-590.
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.
Liang, J.-C., Min-Hsien, L., & Chin-Chung, T. (2010). The Relations Between Scientific Epistemological Beliefs and Approaches to Learning Science Among Science-Major Undergraduates in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (De La Salle University Manila), 19(1).
Lin, T.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). Innovative technology-assisted science learning in Taiwan. In Science Education Research and Practices in Taiwan (pp. 189-209): Springer.
Liu, C.-C., Chung, C.-W., Chen, N.-S., & Liu, B.-J. (2009). Analysis of peer interaction in learning activities with personal handhelds and shared displays. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3).
Liu, C.-Y., Wu, C.-J., Wong, W.-K., Lien, Y.-W., & Chao, T.-K. (2017). Scientific modeling with mobile devices in high school physics labs. Computers & Education, 105, 44-56.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Mühlpfordt, M. & Wessner, M （2009）. The Integration of Dual-interaction Spaces, in Stahl, G. （Ed） Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York, NY: Springer.
National Research Council. （1996）. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council （2011）. Assessing 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S.-h. S., & Baker, E. L. （2010）. Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem solving. In Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge ,261-279: Springer.
OECD. （2010）. PISA 2012 Field Trial Problem Solving Framework. OECD Publishing.
OECD. （2011）. The OECD guide to measuring the information society: OECD Publishing.
OECD. （2013）. PISA 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving Framework. OECD Publishing.
Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. （2008）. Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26, 113-128.
Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students' learning science concepts from text. Journal of educational psychology, 87(2), 282.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Computer supported collaborative learning.
Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students' preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370.
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams (Vol. 11): Springer Science & Business Media.
Tsai, C. C., & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi‐dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in human behavior, 21(4), 671-688.
Wee, L. K., Goh, G. H., & Lim, E.-P. (2014). Easy Java Simulation, an innovative tool for teachers as designers of gravity-physics computer models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.3061.
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.
Winsberg, E. (2013). Computer simulations in science. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/entries/simulations-science/