本研究旨在探討將數位科技融入STEAM專題導向學習 (Project-Based Learning, PBL) 應用於國小自然與生活科技課程中，對於國小六年級學生在「科學自我效能」及「科學素養」之影響。本研究採用準實驗研究法搭配混合研究設計，以臺南市某國小六年級學生為研究對象，共計56人，分為實驗組（28人）與控制組（28人）。實驗組實施為期18週、結合設計思考 (Design Thinking)的三階段DT-PBL課程（包含鷹架與訓練、設計與實施、測試與改進）(Chang et al., 2023)，並融入虛擬實境(VR)、人工智慧(AI)、CoSpaces及平板電腦等數位科技工具；控制組則採行傳統講述式教學。
本研究透過量化問卷「科學學習自我效能問卷」與改編之「全球科學素養問卷」進行前後測資料蒐集，並輔以焦點團體訪談之質性資料進行三角驗證與深入分析。研究結果歸納如下：
一、科學自我效能方面：實驗組學生在「概念理解」、「高階認知技能」、「實作工作」、「日常應用」及「科學溝通」等五個面向的後測表現均達顯著水準，且顯著優於控制組。
二、科學素養方面：實驗組學生在「思考習慣」、「品格與價值觀」、「努力追求科學」及「後設認知與自我引導」等四個面向的後測成績均有顯著提升。
三、質性分析發現：訪談結果支持量化數據，顯示數位科技（如VR的沉浸感）能提供新穎的學習體驗，將抽象科學概念具象化，提高學習動機。學生在實作過程中，展現出從被動接收轉為主動探究的學習態度，並能用科技工具解決問題。唯學生的自信心仍具情境依賴性，需透過持續的成功經驗加以穩固。
綜上所述，本研究證實以設計思考為架構的科技融入STEAM PBL課程，對於提升國小學童的科學自我效能與科學素養具有正向成效。本研究亦針對教學設計、科技應用及未來研究方向提出具體建議，以供教育工作者及後續研究參考。

This study aims to explore the impact of digital technology-integrated STEAM Project-Based Learning (PBL) on six-graders’ science self-efficacy and scientific literacy within the "Science and Technology” course. A quasi-experimental design with a mixed-methods approach was adopted. The participants were 56 sixth-grade students (age 11-12) from a primary school in Tainan City, divided into an experimental group (n=28) and a comparison group (n=28). The experimental group participated in an 18-week, three-stage DT-PBL course (Scaffolding and Training, Design and Implementation, Testing and Improvement) based on the Design Thinking-PBL framework. This curriculum integrated digital tools such as Virtual Reality (VR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), CoSpaces, and tablets. The comparison group received traditional lecture-based instruction.
Quantitative data were collected using the "Science Learning Self-Efficacy Questionnaire" and an adapted "Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire," while qualitative data from focus group interviews were used for triangulation and in-depth analysis. The research findings are summarised as follows:
(1) Science Self-Efficacy: The experimental group achieved significant improvement in the post-test scores across five dimensions: conceptual understanding, higher-order cognitive skills, practical tasks, everyday application, and science communication.
(2) Scientific Literacy: The experimental group showed significant growth in four dimensions: habits of mind, character and values, the pursuit of science, and metacognition and self-direction.
(3) Qualitative Findings: Interview results supported the quantitative data, indicating that digital technologies (such as the immersive nature of VR) provide novel learning experiences, visualise abstract scientific concepts, and enhance learning motivation. During the hands-on process, students shifted from passive digital consumers to active inquirers, demonstrating the ability to solve problems using digital tools. However, students' self-confidence remained context-dependent, suggesting a need for sustained successful experiences to solidify self-belief.
In conclusion, this study confirms that a technology-integrated STEAM PBL curriculum based on the Design Thinking-PBL (DT-PBL) framework effectively enhances science self-efficacy and scientific literacy among primary students. Based on these findings, recommendations are provided regarding instructional design, technology application, and future research directions for educators and researchers.

王怡真（2006）。國小低年級學童科學素養培養之教學研究。﹝碩士論文。國立臺東大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/e4hdv8
王憶萱（2018）。實施素養導向之探究課程對國中七年級學生科學素養之影響。﹝碩士論文。國立彰化師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/bhr9wq
仰威融、林淑梤（2020）。運用 PISA 科學素養評量架構探討 國中生物教科書中問題的特徵。教科書研究 ，13（1），75-106。
佘曉清、 林煥祥。(2019)。PISA 2015 臺灣學生的表現。國立交通大學出版社。
吳皇慶（2019）。新世代多媒體線上科學素養評量的發展與應用。﹝博士論文。國立臺灣師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/d73rj9
林可薇（2023）。融入探究與實作教學模式對師資生科學素養之研究 -以中部某大學為例。﹝碩士論文。靜宜大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2j5gx3
林穎欣（2009）。高中學生知覺教師探究教學對生物科學習興趣、科學素養與探究能力之影響。﹝碩士論文。大葉大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/h5f96g
柯明喬（2022）。科學素養導向「地貌與岩礦形成桌遊」之設計與評估研究。﹝碩士論文。淡江大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/r7mfh4
張筱筑（2021）。自我效能、學習興趣、班級氣氛及差異化教學對15歲學生科學素養之影響：多層次分析。﹝碩士論文。銘傳大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/j78ezt
張銘秋、謝秀月&徐秋月。(2009)。PISA 科學素養之試題認知成份分析。
莊凱博（2023）。自我效能、學習興趣與教師支持對臺灣國中生科學素養之影響：多層次模型分析。﹝碩士論文。銘傳大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/szm45x
陳昕晏（2014）。融入探究元素之教學模組對七年級學生學習成效、科學素養及學習興趣之影響 -以生殖與遺傳單元為例。﹝碩士論文。國立彰化師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/y86hs5
黃欣鈺（2016）。PISA科學素養融入探究式教學以提升國小學生科學學習成效之研究。﹝碩士論文。國立屏東大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7z67zq
黃茂在、吳敏而（2016）。科學素養與課程統整。教育脈動，(5)，e1-16。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20160218002-201602-201603110030-201603110030-e1-16　
黃梅荔（2022）。國小學童科學素養評量工具之發展。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北教育大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/pb6t4n
黃翠芬（2022）。國小六年級學童探究能力與科學素養之調查研究 - 以新北市某國小為例。﹝碩士論文。國立臺南大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zqgdcu
詹惠雪、陳美如（2018）。自然科學素養導向課程設計與實踐－以國中理化能源主題為例。中等教育，69(4)，90-104。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.201812_69(4).0044
靳知勤（2002）。效化“基本科學素養”問卷。科學教育學刊，10(3)，287-308。https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.2002.1003.04
臺灣PISA國家研究中心https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Module/index.aspx?sid=1224　
顧展兆（2021）。探索課程本位科學素養試卷的發展與效化。﹝碩士論文。國立彰化師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p3khsd
陸希平、王本榮、陳家玉（2006）。問題導向學習。醫學教育，10(2)，89-97。
張凱皓（2012）。線上「問題本位學習」模式對國小學童自然與生活科技學習領域自我導向學習與學習成就之影響。中原大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/f8745e。
徐新逸(2001)如何利用網路幫助孩子成為研究高手？網路專題式學習與教學創新。臺灣教育，607，25-34。
顏膺修（2012）。雲端上的科學專題導向學習 -運用雲端運算服務於國小科學之專題導向學習研究。﹝博士論文。國立彰化師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9n4449。
Adler, K., Salanterä, S., & Zumstein-Shaha, M. (2019). Focus group interviews in child, youth, and parent research: An integrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919887274
Afriana, J., Permanasari, A., & Fitriani, A. (2016). Project based learning integrated to stem to enhance elementary school’s students scientific literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 261-267.
Akgun, O. E. (2013). The role of technology in PBL applications: Research findings and recommendations. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 19-30.
Almuntasheri, S., Gillies, R. M., & Wright, T. (2016). The effectiveness of PBL in science education across different age groups. Journal of Science Education, 42(3), 234-246.
Andone, D., & Frydenberg, M. (2019). Creating virtual reality in a business and technology educational context. In M. C. tom Dieck & T. Jung (Eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality (pp. 147-159). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_11
Azungah, T. (2018). Qualitative research: Deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 　
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer.
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920　
Blümfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Penfield, R. (1991). Conditions that facilitate student learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 201-227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2602_3　
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.　
Brydges, R., & Butler, D. L. (2021). Self-regulated learning and problem-based learning: An exploration of theoretical perspectives. Medical Education, 55(2), 184-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14375　
Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six Frames for Information literacy Education: a conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05010002
Buck Institute for Education (2017). What is project based learning (PBL). http://www.bie.org/about/what_pbl.　
Buxton, C., & Campus, U. L. (2001). Exploring science-literacy-in-practice: Implications for scientific literacy from an anthropological perspective. Electronic Journal in Science and Literacy Education, 1(1).
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
Chauhan, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105, 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005
Chase, M. A. (2001). Children’s Self-Efficacy, Motivational Intentions, and Attributions in Physical education and sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608931
Chang, C., Du, Z., Kuo, H., & Chang, C. (2023). Investigating the impact of Design Thinking-Based STEAM PBL on students’ creativity and computational thinking. IEEE Transactions on Education, 66(6), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2023.3297221
Cimen, O., Yildiz, A., & Ceyhan, E. (2020). The effects of problem-based learning on students’ self-regulation and problem-solving skills. Education and Science, 45(202), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8427　
Code, J., Ralph, R., & Forde, K. (2020). Pandemic designs for the future: perspectives of technology education teachers during COVID-19. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 419-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2020-0112
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
Coulson, D., & Harvey, M. (2022). Reflective practice in PBL: Enhancing critical thinking and lifelong learning skills. Journal of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 234-246. https://doi.org/10.5278/jpbhe.v10i2.6178　
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Fourth Edition). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition.). SAGE.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66-69.
Dede, C., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In D. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards (Eds.), Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in learning (pp. 1-16). Springer.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. MacMillan.
Dilshad, R. M. & Latif, M. I. (2013). Focus Group Interview as a Tool for Qualitative Research: An Analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 33(1), 191-198.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005　
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem based learning & other curriculum models for the　multiple intelligences classrooms. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight　Professional Development.
Goldschmidt, K. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Technology use to support the well-being of children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 53, 88-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.04.013
Gonzalez, L. M., & Rivas, C. (2021). The influence of parental involvement on children’s science self-efficacy: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 43(10), 1492-1512.
Govindarajan, M. A. A., Archambault, P. S., & Haili, Y. L. E. (2022). Comparing the usability of a virtual reality manual wheelchair simulator in two display conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20556683211067174
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601
Halabi, O. (2020). Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79, 2987-3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019- 08214-8
Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice, 105-129.
Hasni, A., Roy, P., & Dumais, N. (2016). Effectiveness of STEM and STEAM practices in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 412-444.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487　
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3　
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of active learning. In J. Michael & H. Modell (Eds.), Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms (pp. 103-124). Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Reiner, D. (2019). Scaffolding collaborative learning in educational contexts. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635467　
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of science education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275-288.
Holmes, N. G., Wieman, C. E., & Bonn, D. A. (2019). Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(9), 1836-1843. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917897116　
Hsieh, M. C. (2021). Development and application of an augmented reality oyster learning system for primary marine education. Electronics, 10(22), 2818. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10222818
Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership,16(1), 13-16, 52.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon.　
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
Klenowski, V. (2023). Cross-disciplinary applications of reflective practice in problem-based learning: Impacts on knowledge adaptability. Educational Research Review, 41, 100634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100634　
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-277.
Kongju Mun, N., Shin, N., Lee, H., Kim, S.-W., Choi, K., Choi, S.-Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1739–1766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956　
Kongju Mun, S., Kim, H., & Jeong, M. (2015). Development of the Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire (GSLQ): A tool for measuring global perspectives in science education. Science Education International, 26(3), 318-332.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (p. 317-334). Cambridge University Press.　
Lai, C. (2024). Enhancing multimodal output in CLIL education: the impact of VR games on fourth-grade students’ English poster designs and presentations in Taiwan. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03999- y
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project-based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. ASCD.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science education, 84(1), 71-94.
Lee, H., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Challenges in implementing PBL in elementary education: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 74-85.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Progress in studying the development and facilitation of interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(4), 563-578.　
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122.　
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2020). Social cognitive career theory: A quarter-century retrospective. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(1), 1-14.
Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A multi-dimensional instrument for evaluating Taiwanese high school students' science learning self-efficacy in relation to their approaches to learning science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1275–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9376-2　
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
Lloyd, A. (2007). Learning to put out the red stuff: Becoming information literate through discursive practice. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 77(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1086/517844
Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2021). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its implications for learner support. Journal of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v9i1.6114　
Lu, H., Chen, X., & Qi, C. (2022). Which is more predictive: Domain‐ or task‐specific self‐efficacy in teaching and outcomes? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12554
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project-based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project-based learning for middle and high school teachers. Buck Institute for Education.
Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Project-based learning in STEM education: What we know and where we are going. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 333-366.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Morales, A., Bang, E., & Andre, T. (2013). A pilot study of the effectiveness of a STEAM enrichment program for elementary school students. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 25(4), 27-41.
Namey, E., Guest, G., McKenna, K., & Chen, M. (2016). Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(3), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016630406
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.　
OECD (2018). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing.　
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. The Nuffield Foundation.　
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
Pellas, N., Kazanidis, I. & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2020). A systematic literature review of mixed reality environments in K-12 education. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 2481-2520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10076-4
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Ramnarain, U., & Ramaila, S. (2018). The relationship between learning environment and science self-efficacy of learners in township schools in South Africa. Research in Science Education, 48(3), 341-353.　
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (Fourth Edition). Wiley.
Rootman-Le Grange, I. (2019). Real-life context in the science literacy framework for PISA 2015. South African Journal of Education, 39(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n3a1631　
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essentials of PBL, 5(1), 5-15.　
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2011). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 227-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.607837　
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04035.x　
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 73-92.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychologist, 25(3), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1989.9651883　
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Psychology Press.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science education, 88(4), 610-645.
Shan, Y. (2021). Philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. Philosophy Compass, 17, e12804. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12804
Siefer, K., Leuders, T., & Obersteiner, A. (2021). Which task characteristics do students rely on when they evaluate their abilities to solve linear function tasks? – a Task-Specific Assessment of Self-Efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 596901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596901
Smith, S. A., Kass, S. J., Rotunda, R. J., & Schneider, S. K. (2006). If at First You Don’t Succeed: Effects of Failure on General and Task-Specific Self-Efficacy and Performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.06.029
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology & Learning Magazine,23. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/article/17708
Song, H., & Hill, J. R. (2020). Self-directed learning in PBL environments: Examining the role of motivation and metacognition. Journal of Learning Sciences, 29(4), 528-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1783263　
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 12-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007
Spector, J. M., & Ifenthaler, D. (Eds.). (2014). Personalized learning: A Handbook for improving learning outcomes. Routledge.
Steffens, K. (2019). Self-regulated learning in PBL environments: How students manage their own learning. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 579-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09501-3　
Tamim, S. R., & Grant, M. M. (2013). The state of project-based learning in elementary schools: A review of literature. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 36-46.
Tawfik, A. A., & Kolodner, J. L. (2016). Systematizing scaffolding for problem-based learning: A view from case-based reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1603
Tawfik, A. A., Griffith, R., & Jayaraman, S. (2020). Using real-world problems to support problem-based learning in virtual settings: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1673-1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09736-y　
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA:Autodesk.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation, 1-44.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why today's super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy--and completely unprepared for adulthood--and what that means for the rest of us. New York: Atria Books.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 901-913.
Vodă, A. I., Cautisanu, C., Grădinaru, C., Tănăsescu, C., & de Moraes, G. H. S. M. (2022). Exploring digital literacy skills in social sciences and humanities students. Sustainability, 14(5), 2483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052483
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, X., Zhang, X., & Zhong, J. (2021). Exploring science self-efficacy in early adolescent students: The role of peer and teacher support. Educational Psychology, 41(5), 554-570.
Whitworth, A. (2020). Mapping information landscapes: New methods for exploring the development and teaching of information literacy. Facet. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304189
Williams, K. M., Clarkson, B., & Lewis, C. A. (2022). Adapting to change: Self-directed learning and flexibility in problem-based learning environments. Educational Research Review, 36, 100456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100456　
Wong, S. S. H., Kim, M., & Jin, Q. (2021). Critical literacy practices within problem-based learning projects in science. Interchange, 52, 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780- 021-09426-4
Wu, Y. H. S., & Hung, S. T. A. (2022). The effects of virtual reality infused instruction on elementary school students’ English-speaking performance, willingness to communicate, and learning autonomy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(6) 1558-1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211068207
Zilka, G. C., & Cohen, R. (2022). The digital literacy of students belonging to different sectors and studying on multicultural campuses. Israel Affairs, 28(2), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2022.2041828
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.