本研究主要目的為：(一)探討不同主修領域背景的大學生，其知識信念是否有差異。(二)探討大學生知識信念與學習策略的關係。(三)探討大學生主修領域背景與學習策略的關係。 本研究以自編「大學生知識信念與學習策略量表」為工具，抽取政治大學、清華大學、中興大學法商學院、台灣藝術學院與東海大學等五所大學 368 位大學生為對象，共分為自然科學領域大學生 116 人，社會科學領域大學生 141 人與人文學科領域大學生 111 人。探討主修領域背景對大學生知識信念與學習策略的影響。 主要研究結果如下： 一、知識信念是一個具備多個面向的信念系統。 二、知識信念並不具有跨領域特性；學習策略的使用也會受個體主修領域背景所影響。 三、個體對知識本質與認識本質的看法會影響其學習策略的使用。 四、自然科學領域的大學生比其它兩個主修領域的大學生擁有較靜態的知識信念與傾向於常使用複誦策略來學習。 本研究並對教育實務與未來的研究方向，提供以下幾點建議： 一、教育實務方面 1.實施具有反思性特質的科學教育。 2.實施反思性師範教育方案。 3.多使用具建構精神的教學法。 4.實施具備「科技整合」特質的大學教育並多開設「學習策略學習」有關的課程。 5.教學時需多種教學元素的配合，才能促動學生更有效學習。 二、未來研究方向 1.配合多種方法研究大學生的知識信念。 2.對大學生的知識信念進行長期縱貫性的研究。 3.編製信效度良好的學習策略量表。

This dissertation describes the credibility judgment process using social psychological theories of dual-processing, which state that information processing outcomes are the result of an interaction “between a fast, associative information- processing mode based on low-effort heuristics, and a slow, rule-based information processing mode based on high-effort systematic reasoning” (Chaiken & Trope, 1999, p. ix). Further, this interaction is illustrated by describing credibility judgments as a choice between examining easily identified peripheral cues (the messenger) and content (the message), leading to different evaluations in different settings. The focus here is on the domain of the Web, where ambiguous authorship, peer- produced content, and the lack of gatekeepers create an environment where credibility judgments are a necessary routine in triaging information. It reviews the relevant literature on existing credibility frameworks and the component factors that affect credibility judgments. The online encyclopedia (instantiated as Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica) is then proposed as a canonical form to examine the credibility judgment process. The two main claims advanced here are (1) that information sources are composed of both message (the content) and messenger (the way the message is delivered), and that the messenger impacts perceived credibility; and (2) that perceived credibility is tempered by information need (individual engagement). These claims were framed by the models proposed by Wathen & Burkell (2002) and Chaiken (1980) to forward a composite dual process theory of credibility judgments, which was tested by two experimental studies. The independent variables of interest were: media format (print or electronic); reputation of source (Wikipedia or Britannica); and the participant’s individual involvement in the research task (high or low). The results of these studies encourage a more nuanced understanding of the credibility judgment process by framing it as a dual-process model, and showing that certain mediating variables can affect the relative use of low-effort evaluation and high- effort reasoning when forming a perception of credibility. Finally, the results support the importance of messenger effects on perceived credibility, implying that credibility judgments, especially in the online environment, and especially in cases of low individual engagement, are based on peripheral cues rather than an informed evaluation of content. / text