IPadE論證訓練模式對大學生AIDS知識、健康信念與論證能力之影響_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	IPadE論證訓練模式對大學生AIDS知識、健康信念與論證能力之影響
作者：	范雅晴
作者(外文)：	Ya-Ching Fan
校院名稱：	國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱：	科學教育研究所
指導教授：	王國華
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2012
主題關鍵詞：	AIDS教育；「IPadE」論證訓練模式；大學生；社會性科學議題；網路互動式論證系統；論證能力；健康信念；AIDS education；IPadE argumentation training model；university students；socioscientific issues；Web-based Interactive Argumentation System；argumentation ability；health belief
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:109

本研究目的在探討「IPadE（Intuitive claim, Peer-assessment, discussion, and Elaborate claim）」論證訓練模式對大學生AIDS知識、健康信念和AIDS相關議題論證能力之影響。本研究所發展的「IPadE」論證訓練模式，可以讓參與的大學生在網路論證系統環境中進行個別化論點的陳述、同儕間互評論點與小組互動討論，並閱讀AIDS議題相關之數位教材，以增進其議題知識、健康信念與論證能力。本研究所討論的社會性科學議題包括愛滋病人器官是否能捐贈與健保IC晶片卡內是否應註記感染HIV病毒。本研究為考驗「IPadE」論證訓練模式的效益，採用準實驗研究設計，研究對象共131位大學生，分別為實驗組69人，對照組62人。實驗組採用「IPadE」論證訓練模式，而對照組則在傳統課室中採用一般論證模式。在進行十堂課的論證訓練後，由量化輔以質性資料收集的角度，分別比較大學生之AIDS知識、健康信念與論證能力三個面向的發展情形。收集的量化資料以SPSS軟體之成對樣本t檢定、單因子共變數分析、二因子共變數分析、Pearson相關與多元迴歸分析等方法進行分析。質性資料則經過編碼、分類、比較後，輔助量化結果說明。
本研究之具體發現如下：
1.在議題知識、健康信念、論證能力的發展情形上，實驗組皆顯著優於對照組。顯示「IPadE」論證訓練模式對於大學生發展其議題知識、健康信念和論證能力具有良好的效益。在器官捐贈與健保卡註記議題論點形式方面，兩組學生在器官捐贈議題提出「理由、加強理由、反駁理由」均以「科學或科技理由」為最多，「生存倫理理由」次之，「保護理由」提出「健康理由」為最多。兩組學生在健保卡註記議題提出「理由、加強理由」均以「科學或科技理由」為最多，「社會理由」次之，「反駁理由」與「保護理由」以「法律理由」為最多。實驗組學生能提出「混合理由」的人數皆比訓練前為多。
2.不同學習風格學生，在健康信念、論證能力無顯著差異，但在議題知識發展有顯著差異，省思觀察型學生顯著優於主動驗證型學生。而在實驗組中，省思觀察型學生其議題知識、健康信念與論證能力的發展情形均優於主動驗證型學生。
3.探討大學生議題知識、健康信念、論證能力三變項的相關情形，其中議題知識與論證能力以及健康信念與論證能力有顯著相關性。在學習風格、議題知識、健康信念三變項預測論證能力方面，第一次論證其議題知識、健康信念對論證能力具有顯著預測力，第二次論證僅有健康信念變項對論證能力有顯著預測力。

以文找文

The major purpose of this research focused on the effects of a Web-based model, IPadE (Intuitive claim, Peer-assessment, Discussion, and Elaborate claim) Argumentation Training Model, to promote university students AIDS knowledge, health beliefs, and the argumentation ability. This model enabled the participating undergraduate students to present their naïve thinking, peer-assessments and group discussions online in Web-based Interactive Argumentation System, as well as allowing them to access electronic materials on related issues to enhance their AIDS knowledge, health beliefs, and argumentation abilities. The socioscientific issues discussed in this research include (1) whether AIDS patients should be allowed to donate organs, and (2) whether the National Health IC card should require the registration of HIV status.
To assess the effectiveness of the IPadE model, a quasi-experimental method was conducted for 10 h within a 1-month period. The sample consisted of 131 undergraduate students (69 in the experimental group and 62 in the control group). The experimental group adopted the IPadE model, whereas the control group used a traditional argumentation training model. This study collected and analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data, including pre- and posttests of AIDS knowledge, health beliefs, and argumentation abilities that used SPSS paired-t test, one-way ANCOVA, two-way ANCOVA, Pearson correlation, and multiple regressions. Furthermore, qualitative data was auxiliary to quantitative result after coding, categorization and comparison.
The results and conclusions of this research are as follows:
1. The results generally confirmed the effectiveness of the IPadE model. First, there were statisitically significant differences among the AIDS knowledge, health beliefs, and argumentation abilities of the participants in the experimental and control groups (p<.05). Regarding the various types of reasons and reinforce reasons for organ donation and IC card require the registration, the majority of the reasons proposed by students were scientific or technological, followed by ethical reasons and nomothetic reasons. The number of students in the experimental group that were able to propose mixed reasons increased after the training.
2. Secondly, students with different learning style have no significant difference in their health beliefs, and argumentation abilities. However, there was a statisitically significant difference between reflective observation (RO) learning style and active experimentation (AE) learning style on their issue knowledge. Furthermore, RO students have better performance than AE students on their issue knowledge, health beliefs, and argumentation abilities development in experimental group.
3. There are statistically significant correlation between the variables of content knowledge and argumentation abilities, as well as health beliefs and argumentation abilities. The content knowledge and health beliefs had significant prediction compared to argumentation abilities in intuitive claim of undergraduate students. However, the variables of health beliefs had significant prediction compared to argumentation abilities in elaborative claim after the educational training treatment.

以文找文

一、中文部分
丁信中（2004）。青年學生於理論競爭論證過程中對其支持理論侷限的覺察（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
林上翔（2008）。應用Lakatos模式於網路互動性論證系統進行社會性科學議題論證教學對於提升批判與論證思考能力之研究—以國小高年級學生為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。
林宗進、林樹聲、陳映均（2010）。大學生對基因改造作物議題的認知與論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，18，229-252。 new window

林燕文、洪振方（2007）。對話論證的探究對促進學童科學概念理解之探討。花蓮教育大學學報，24，139-177。 new window

林樹聲（2004）。重視自然與生活科技學習領域中科技爭議議題的融入與探討。載於林生傳（主編），國民中小學九年一貫課程理論基礎（二）（453-465頁）。臺北市：教育部。
林樹聲、黃柏鴻（2009）。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究―不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊，17，111-133。 new window

洪振方（1994）。從孔恩的異例認知與論證探討科學知識的重建（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 new window

陳九五（1990）。大學新生對愛滋病之態度調查。公共衛生，17，11-15。
靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林（2010）。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊，19，143-168。 new window

張淑女（2004）。從認識論的觀點探究大學生論證思考之能力與模式（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。 new window

蔡佩穎、張惠博、林雅慧、張文華（2010）。小組立場、小組組成及文本特性對於學生論證生殖遺傳新聞之效應。科學教育學刊，18，253-276。 new window

蔡俊彥、黃台珠、楊錦潭（2008）。國小學童網路論證能力及科學概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊，16，171-192。 new window

蔡俊彥（2009）。以認知學徒制網路論證系統促進論證能力、概念學習與批判思考成效之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
黃柏鴻、林樹聲（2007）。論證教學相關實證性研究之回顧與省思。科學教育月刊，302，5-20。
黃翎斐、胡瑞萍（2006）。論證與科學教育的理論和實務。科學教育月刊，292，15-28。
顧乃平、李選等（1997）。護理專業導論。台北市：匯華。

二、英文部分
21st Century Science Project Team. (2003). 21st century science- a new flexible model for GCSE science. School Science Review, 85, 27-34.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners' epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In D. L. Zeidler (Eds.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41-61). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Angell, R. B. (1964). Reasoning and Logic. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Bailey, C. (1975). Neutrality and rationality in teaching. In D. Bridges &; P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Values and authority in schools. London, UK: Hodder &; Stoughton.
Barrett, S. E., &; Nieswandt, M. (2010). Teaching about ethics through socioscientific issues in Physics and chemistry: Teacher candidates’ beliefs. In¬ternational Journal of Science Teaching, 47, 380-401.
Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 409-419.
Bodzin, A., &; Cates, W. (2003). Enhancing preservice teachers’ understanding of Web-based scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 237-257.
Bricker, L. A., &; Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualization of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
Chang, S. N. (2007). Teaching argumentation though the visual models in a resource-based learning environment. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8, Article 5.
Chang, S. N., &; Chiu, M. H. (2008). Laka¬tos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argu¬mentation about socioscientific issues. In¬ternational Journal of Science Education, 30, 1753-1773.
Clarina, R. B., &; Smith, L. (1988). Learning style shifts in computer-assisted instructional settings. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED295796)
Clark, D. B., &; Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253-277.
Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Driver, R., Newton, P., &; Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Edu¬cation, 84, 287-312.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459.
Falchikov, N., &; Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322.
Halpern, D. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H. K., Krajcik., &; Soloway, S. E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the used of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 323-346.
Inner London Education Authority. (1986). The teaching of controversial issues in schools: Advice for the inspectorate. London, UK: Author.
Jeong, A., &; Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 651-665.
Jimènez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., &; Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the le-sson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Joiner, R., &; Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861-871.
Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., Kramer, S., &; Patel, V. L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 844-863.
Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., &; Patel, V. L. (2004). “You can exercise your way out of HIV” and other stories: The role of biological knowledge in adolescents’ evaluation of myths. Science Education, 88, 548-573.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222-232.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory. Boston: Mcber &; Co.
Kolb, D. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston: McBer &; Co.
Kolb, A. Y., &; Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 193-212.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, …’ - pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. In¬ternational Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689-1716.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, L., Steinberg, M., &; Mathews, C. (1994). Participation of the school community in AIDS education: An evaluation of a high school programme in South Africa. AIDS Care, 6, 161-171.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cambrige university press.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201-1224.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., &; Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432.
Lin, S. -S., &; Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 993-1017.

Means, M. L., &; Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., &; Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17-39.
Oh, S., &; Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95-110.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &; Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argu¬mentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., &; Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualising the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411-423.
Patronis, T., Potari, D. &; Spiliotopoulou, D. (1999). “Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implication for teaching”. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Rada, R., &; Hu, K. (2002). Patterns in student–student commenting. IEEE Transactions on Education, 45, 262-267.
Riding, R., &; Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive style and learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328-335.
Ryder, R. J., &; Graves, M. F. (1997). Using the internet to enhance student’s reading, writing, and information-gathering skills. Journal of Adolescent &; Adult Literacy, 40, 244-254.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher educa¬tion. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1-42.
Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, &; Allspaw (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of research in science teachering, 43, 353-376.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., &; Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a so¬cioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
Sadler, T. D., &; Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. Inter¬national Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488.
Sadler, T. D., &; Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
Sadler, T. D., &; Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for in¬formal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to ge¬netic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
Sadler, T. D., &; Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Pa-tterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
Sampson, V., &; Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice Training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 815-830.
Sandoval, W. A., &; Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
Schommer-Aikins, M., &; Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psycholoay, 136, 5-20.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., &; Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., &; Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer, &; P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261-275), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., &; Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903-927.
Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., &; Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environment Research, 1, 293-319.
Smith, H., Cooper, A., &; Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: a case study from psychology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81.
Stenhouse, L. (1970). Controversial value issues. In W. G. Carr (Eds.), Values in the curriculum. (pp. 103-115). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Stradling, R. (1984). Controversial issues in the curriculum. In R. Stradling, M. Noctor, &; B. Baines (Eds.), Teaching controversial issues. (pp. 1-12). Melbourne, Australia: Edward Arnold.
Tsai, C. -C., Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S. J., &; Yuan, S. M. (2001). A network peer assessment system based on a Vee heuristic. Innovations in Education and Training International, 38, 220-230.
Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: Immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching &; Teacher Education, 16, 575-591.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Von Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17, 144-158.
Voss, J. F., &; Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Leaning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
Wales, J., &; Clarke, P. (2005). Learning citizenship. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
Walker, K. A., &; Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387-1410.
Wellington, J. (1986). The nuclear issue. In J. Wellington (Eds.), Controversial issues in the curriculum (pp. 149-168). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Woolhouse, M. (1999). Peer assessment: the participants’ perception of two activities on a further education teacher education course. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, 211-219.
Wu, Y. -T., &; Tsai, C. -C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quan¬titative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163-1187.
Zaslavsky, O., &; Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth though practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 5-32.
Zeidler, D. L., &; Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Eds.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zohar, A., &; Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	大學生參與運動之健康信念對行為意圖之研究
2.	永續發展教育架構下STREAM跨領域教育之探究
3.	問題答案關係策略融入閱讀教學對國小六年級學生閱讀理解與論證能力之影響：以社會性科學議題為例
4.	提問鷹架設計對學生社會性科學議題決策能力表現的影響
5.	STS科學讀寫探究對四年級不同程度學生科學學習動機、小組合作及過程技能影響之研究
6.	比較不同背景的研究生如何設計PO+E實驗與微型教學
7.	當科學素養與閱讀素養相遇：高中學生科學新聞閱讀策略之實驗研究
8.	以科學新聞融入教學提升中學生自我效能及論證能力之探討
9.	國小自然科教師從事兒童科學讀物創作之合作行動研究
10.	社會性科學議題情境下論證式探究教學與課程對七年級學生科學學習成就、論證能力和科學素養之影響
11.	大學生對人工生殖科技的接受度與觀點
12.	科學探究與實作課程的發展、實施與評量：以實驗室中的科學論證為核心之研究
13.	社會性科學議題線上教學模組對高中生多元面向決策的影響
14.	如果可以這樣學自然！--國小學生在社會性科學議題教學中知識、動機與合作能力的改變
15.	臺中市大學生肥胖健康信念與體重控制行為之相關性分析

1.	議題式行動導向科學教學之設計與實踐
2.	探討高中生在社會性科學議題決策課程中非形式推理能力、小組協作調整行為與決策方法的關係
3.	發展與實施「自然科學探究與實作」課程之研究
4.	合作式推理教學對學童論證能力之影響
5.	翻轉教室融入論證探究教學模式之發展與學生成效評估—以遺傳單元為例
6.	論證為主的探究教學模式對六年級學童探究學習影響之研究
7.	學生羽球運動能力指標建構及其迷思概念之探究
8.	大學生社會性科學議題小組討論及組間辯論之居位 —Toulmin論證分析取向
9.	以科學新聞作者為對象進行寫作論證對七年級學生的認知學習成效之探討
10.	從系統典範探討板塊構造學說多重類比教學－「凱利方格法」（RGT）之系統性應用
11.	國小學童科學問題合理性判斷的熱認知喚起與弱化作用

1.	社會情境
2.	國小學童科學閱讀理解動態評量數位化教學之發展

無相關著作

1.	愛滋病患者心理狀態、身體覺察與休閒治療需求--個案研究
2.	Shao-hua Liu, Passage to Manhood: Youth Migration, Heroin, and AIDS in Southwest China
3.	愛滋病疫苗發展之挑戰
4.	護理人員對愛滋病照護知識需求評估之探討

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫