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開放程度有所不同，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，本研究主要的目有兩個，一為進行「網路科展探究系統」（Online Science Fair Inquiry System，OSFIS）的改版，以提供教師進行科展探究教學、學生進行科展探究所需要的各種鷹架；二為評估OSFIS是否能符合科展教師的需求。本研究研究對象為61名國小教師，採用調查研究法的問卷調查法，評估國小教師對於OSFIS的感知。研究結果發現現場國小教師對於OSFIS的「使用意願」、「整體知覺有用性」、「整體知覺易用性」、「探究歷程架構之有用性」、「鷹架功能之有用性」都是給予正面回饋；此外更進一步分析，發現在不同專業背景、不同網路教學經驗、在網路教學環境中的自我效能程度與對學生表現的信心程度可能會有影響科展教師對於OSFIS的感知。

Science fair inquiry (i.e., doing science fair projects) is one of the most common open inquiry learning activities in schools. By doing science fair projects, learners can develop their ability necessary to do scientific inquiry as well as understanding about scientific inquiry. However, there are a great deal of difficulties and challenges for the elementary teachers in Taiwan, such as they may not have sufficient professional ability in guiding learners to conduct science fair inquiry activities effectively. 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, a series of system evaluations on it was conducted with questionnaire survey. The participants of the system evaluation in this study were 61 elementary school teachers. In general, the participant teachers expressed satisfactory perceived usefulness and ease of use of the OSFIS, and were highly tended to use the OSFIS in their science fair instruction. Also, they recognized the usefulness of both the instructional and learning scaffoldings provided in the OSFIS. Moreover, this study revealed that the teachers’ academic backgrounds, experience on using the Internet for teaching, and their self-efficacy may play roles in their perceptions of using the OSFIS. Suggestions and implications for educational practices, system design, and future research are also discussed in this study.

王克先（1989）。學習心理學。台北市：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
沈惠淳（2010）。高雄市國小教師指導科展現況、困難與需求之研究。高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
沈惠淳（2010）。高雄市國小教師指導科展現況、困難與需求之研究。高雄師範大學工業科技教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
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。國立高雄師範大學高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
張玉成（2000）。思考技巧與教學。台北：心理出版社股份有限公司。
教育部（2003），科學教育白皮書。台北：教育部。
黃鴻博（1999）。以STS教育理念改進國民小學團體活動教學之研究。中師數理學刊，第二卷第一期，第88-110頁.
鐘一華（2012）。支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
Abd El Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
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.
Abernethy, K., Gabbert, P. & Treu, K. (1998). Inquiry-Based Computer Science Instruction : Some Initial Experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education and on 6th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing, pp.14-17. Ireland.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
An, Y.-J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 723-734. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol6_No4.htm
Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12.
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science,33(5-6), 367–379.
Banchi, H. & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
Beers, P., Boshuizen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427-435.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bencze, J.L., & Bowen, G.M. (2009). A national science fair: Exhibiting support for the knowledge economy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2459-2483.
Bybee, J. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI, 65-85.
Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. (1993). Goals for the Science Curriculum. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Champagne, A.B., Kouba, V.L., and Hurley, M. (2000). Assessing inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E.H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp.447-470). Washington, DC: American for the Advancement of Science.
Chen, W., Looi, C.K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do Students do in a F2F CSCL Classroom? The Optimization of Multiple Communications Modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159-1170.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175 – 218.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916 – 937.
de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations - Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39 – 60.
Hamelin, D. (2004), Searching the Web to Develop Inquiry and Collaborative Skills. Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education. Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, United Kingdom.
Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J.K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.
Kim, M. C. & Hannafin, M. J. (in press b). Foundations and practice for Web-enhanced science learning environments: grounded design perspectives. In Trends in Distance Education, 2nd ed., edited by R. Luppicini. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
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., P. Blumenfeld, et al. (1998). “Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313-350.
Kyriazi, E., & Constantinou, C. (2004). The Science Fair as a Means for Developing Investigative Skills in Elementary School.
Kyza, E. A., Constantinou, C. P., & Spanoudis, G. (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2489–2525. doi: 10(1080/09500693),2010,550951.
Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: a qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–67.
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.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge.
Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 77 – 97.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional science, 26(1), 49-63.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
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.
Morgan, K., & Brooks, D. (2012). Investigating a Method of Scaffolding Student-Designed Experiments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 513–522.
Morris, R., Hadwin, A. F., Gress, C. L. Z., Miller, M., Fior, M., Church, H., et al. (2010). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in Study.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 815–824.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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. (2011). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences: 13(3), 273-304.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273 – 304.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004).Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88. 345-372.
Sharpe, T. (2006). 'Unpacking' Scaffolding: Identifying Disourse and Multimodal Strategies that Support Learning. Language and Education, 20(3), 211-231.
Slotta, J.D. (2004). The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): Scaffolding Knowledge Integration in the Science Classroom. In M.C. Linn, P. Bell and E. Davis (Eds). Internet Environments for Science Education. 203-232. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, Hesse, F.W., & Spada, H. (Ed.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated knowledge communication and how they may be overcome (5 ed., pp. 15-38). New York: Springer.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.
White, B., Shimoda, T., & Frederiksen, J. (1999). Enabling Students to Construct Theories of Collaborative Inquiry and Reflective Learning: Computer Support for Metacognitive Development. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 151-182.
Windschit, 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 & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yuen, AHK & Ma, WWK (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3): 229–243.