應用於學習中的教學與學習原則，對於學習者的內在經驗感受影響甚大，因此，本研究旨在探討高中生的學習心流經驗，與建構取向學習以及幸福感間的關係；並進一步瞭解學習心流經驗與建構取向學習是否因科目不同而有所差異。 　　本研究以492 位高中學生為研究對象，研究工具包括：「個人生活感受量表」、研究者改編的「學習心流經驗量表」與研究者自編的「建構取向學習量表」。此外，本研究以因素分析、信度分析、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關分析、典型相關分析、迴歸分析及共變數分析進行量表與研究假設的驗證。 　　研究結果顯示： 一、目前高中生在建構取向學習、學習心流經驗及幸福感上，皆呈現中等偏高的程度。 二、高中生學習心流經驗愈佳者，幸福感也愈高。 三、科目並非影響高中生學習心流經驗產生顯著差異的主要原因，建構取向學習才是。 四、建構取向學習愈常出現，高中生的學習心流經驗也愈佳。 　　為促使高中生學習心流經驗的提升，及增加運用建構取向原則於學習中，本研究根據上述研究結果，對高中教師提出幾點實務上之建議： (一)教師的角色－有效的協助者 (二)教師的態度－培養學生的自主性、耐心面對學習時的犯錯 (三)鼓勵師生、同儕間的互動 (四)增加教材、教法、評量、情境的多元性、善用校外資源 　　最後，並從研究議題、設計、對象及工具上等方面提出建議，作為後續研究之參考。

本研究的主要目的在幫助學生發展更主動與建構取向的科學本質觀。以42位修習「自然科學概論」通識課程的大學生為對象，採用「知識論壇」(Knowledge Forum, KF)的線上學習帄台，透過集體共構與分享知識讓學生學習自然科學，並在線上進行知識翻新（knowledge-building）。 研究資料主要來自(1)帄台上的貼文--以此分析學生知識建構與合作分享的情形；(2)「科學本質問卷」--以此分析學生在期初與期末對自然科學本質概念的轉變；(3)科學理論開放問卷--以此探討學生在期初與期末對科學理論概念的差異；以及(4)學生自我反思--藉此了解學生科學觀點轉變的過程。資料分析主要為推論統計之單因子變異數分析及質性的內容分析法。根據分析結果，本研究提出以下四點結論： 一、相較於傳統課堂，學生表現出比較多的同儕互動，特別是在知識論壇帄台中的活動。透過分享與想法的連結(每人帄均貼文14.5篇，貼文連結度達26.9％)，帄台中呈現出密切的知識建構與互動學習。而隨著時間的增長，同儕之間的互動密集度亦呈現逐步增加的趨勢(期初10.1％，期末16.6％)。此外，除了互動學習，學生也在課室中扮演科學史的探索者，透過自身與同儕資訊分享的力量，建構對科學理論發展的認知。根據研究結果，在知識論壇中的活動顯示出學生合作學習與互動頻繁，並能透過多元的學習模式進行知識翻新。 二、學生的科學本質觀產生轉變。在科學本質中的「暫時性」、「理論蘊涵」、「多元化」、「發明觀」、「想像力使用」、「科學知識檢證」與「主觀性」等陎向，期末呈現顯著的轉變，從比較實證的觀點轉變為比較建構的取向。此結果顯示出學生對於科學本質逐漸具備較多元的 看法，認為科學是多元發展的。 三、學生對科學理論的認識也漸趨「建構取向」。針對科學理論在「科學理論知識」、「科學理論探究方法」、「科學理論來源」、「科學理論與科學事業發展」以及「科學理論價值性」等五個陎向，期末時學生對於科學理論的認識逐漸呈現多元與建構的觀點。研究結果顯示，學生認為科學理論是可以從不同角度去進行探究，藉由不同觀點的研究方法或程序，它是可以被不斷翻新與修正的；每個人也都可以透過集體合作、討論、發想來形成新的科學理論概念。 四、從期末反思中發現學生的科學態度亦產生變化。學生了解到理論與想法的進步是需要經過不斷的修改與翻新。再者，學生也認知到理論與理論之間關係緊密，科學家、科學理論之間的不斷互動是促進科學理論演化的動力；最後，學生也瞭解到科學學習應秉持質疑、創新的態度，適時批判權威理論而不照單全收，並且應培養主動學習、勇敢懷疑的態度，以及應能提出自己的想法與他人激盪等，如此方能真正認識科學理論的本質，並有助於推動科學的進步。 本研究根據研究結果及發現，在科學教學與學習方陎提出下列六點建議：(1)擺脫記憶、背誦的科學學習方式；(2)儘量不給標準答案，強調學習者間腦力激盪；(3)建構式科學學習，融入科學史，讓學習者自我建構並認知科學知識；(4)創造互動與合作的知識建構環境；(5)教師應多引導想法的討論與激盪，刺激學生以多元觀點進行對話與知識翻新；(6)脫離制式、標準的教學程序，營建開放的學習環境並促進多元想法。 / The purpose of this study was to help college students develop more informed and sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs. Forty-two undergraduates who took a college course titled ―Introduction to Natural Sciences‖ participated in the study. An online collaborative knowledge building environment, enabled by a software program called Knowledge Forum, was provided for students’ knowledge work. Data primarily came from (1) Students’ online discourse: which was posted in the form of notes, recorded in a Knowledge Forum database, and was used to analyze students’ collaborative learning and knowledge building. (2) A questionnaire—View on Science and Education Questionnaire (VOSE): which was originally designed and validated by Chen (2006) and it was used to analyze the differences of students’ view of nature of science between the beginning and the end of the course. (3) A open-ended survey with regard to the nature of scientific theory: which was employed to triangulate the findings derived from the VOSE and was administered in the beginning and at the end of the course. (4) Students’ self-reflection on what they learned from this course. To analyze, quantitative statistics (e.g., ANOVA) was employed to explore students’ online activities. Additionally, an open-coding procedure was adapted to content-analyze students’ notes. There were four main findings as follows: (1) Students shared ideas constantly, developed connections among ideas, and worked collaboratively and closely with knowledge in Knowledge Forum (with mean number of notes posted being 14.5 and percentage of notes linked being 26.9％). Furthermore, there was an gradual increase in students’ online discourse as reflected by the density of network interaction (10.1 % in the beginning of the course vs. 16.6% at the end of the course). In addition, students served as explorers by reconstructing stories of natural science history in Knowledge Forum, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the process of scientific theory development. The findings suggest that students worked closely together in collaborative learning and interaction, and were able to build knowledge using multiple methods in Knowledge Forum. (2) Students also changed their view of nature of science. It was found that there were significant pre-post change between their view in the beginning and that at the end of the course, in terms of the following seven dimensions: ―tentativeness‖, ―nature of observations‖, ―scientific methods‖, ―theories and laws‖, ―use of imagination‖, ―validation of scientific knowledge‖, and ―subjectivity and objectivity‖. Overall, students’ view shifted from more positivism-oriented to more constructivism-oriented. It was found that towards the end of the course, students started to possess more multiplistic view of nature of science. Students thought that science is advanced by means of multiplistic ways with no standardized methods. (3) In terms of students’ view of scientific theory, it became more ―constructivism-oriented‖ and more multiplistic towards the end of semester, in terms of the following five dimensions: ―knowledge about scientific theory-building‖, ―method of scientific theory-building‖, ―source of scientific theory‖, ―scientific theory and science as an enterprise‖ and ―value of scientific theory‖. It was found that student thought that scientific theory is developed through inquisition from many perspectives. Scientific theory is falsifiable, rather than fixed knowledge entity, and it should not be associated with pre-determined research procedure and standardized answers. Scientific theory can be improved by collaboration discussion and use of imagination. (4) In terms of students’ self-reflection on what they learned from this course, it was found that students demonstrated better understanding that theories are improvable, and that it is important to relate one theory to another for the purpose of creating new knowledge. Moreover, students also realized that it is important to possess critical and creative attitude towards studying science. Building on the above results, this study made the following six suggestions: (1) science learning must go beyond memorization and rote learning; (2) science learning should avoid the pursuit of standardized answers and encourage idea brainstorming; (3) science teachers should promote more constructive way of science learning, try to integrate history of science into science teaching, and help learners construct their own understanding of science; (4) it is important to cultivate a more creative and collaborative learning environment; (5) science teachers should also help students learn how to work with ideas, discuss together, and solve conflicting views; and (6) science teachers should help create an open environment to promote multiple scientific views.